1921-03-31

REPORT PRESENTED

[Stage Direction]
Second Report of the Select Standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines-Mr. Armstrong (Lambton).

Right Hon.   S@: That four hundred copies in English and two hundred in French of the trade agreement between France and Canada, laid on the Table of the House on the 29th instant, be printed forthwith, and that Rule 74 be suspended in relation thereto.


Mr. MURPHY:: May I suggest to my
right hon. friend that there is likely to be a greater demand for French copies of this treaty than for English copies?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: I do not think
so.


Charles Murphy: My right hon. friend
should have at least the same number printed in French as in English.


George Green Foster: I do not think there will be the same demand for the French copies. The demand for the English copies will come from traders and business houses.


Charles Murphy: French business houses
will be interested to the same extent.


George Green Foster: I have no
objection to. making the number of French copies four hundred.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The motion now provides for four hundred copies in English and four hundred in French. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion as so amended?
Motion as amended agreed to.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure):: 1.	Will salmon fishery licenses for the tidal Witters of the Province of Quebec be issued this year by the Department of Marine and Fisheries? If so, when?
2 What policy Is to be adopted?
3.	Will the present holders of licenses from
the province be given the preference for these licenses ?	*
4.	Will applications have to be made?
5.	If so, to whom and when?
6.	Will due notice be given to license holders and the public generally, and will application blanks be supplied?
7.	Who are the fishery officials for the county of Bonaventure?


Hon. Mr. BALLANTYNE:: 1.	Yes. After April 1, next.
2.	Licenses will be granted in accordance with the fishery regulations keeping in view adequate protection of the fisheries.
3.	All applications for licenses will be considered on their merits.
4.	Yes.
5.	To a local fishery officer or to the Department of Marine and Fisheries.
6.	Notice has already been given through the press. No special form of application is required.
7.	None at present.


CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION-PROPOSED ABOLITION
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Has the Government received a resolution from the Progressive Club of Montreal calling for the abolition of the Civil Service Commission?
2.	If so, what is the intention of the Government in the matter?


Right Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


SS. RECRUIT
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough) :: 1.	Was the ss. Recruit of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, which went aground at Vache Point, St. Lawrence river, rescued and refitted for sea?
2.	If so, how much was expended in repairs?
3.	Where were the repairs made and were public tenders asked for by advertisement?
4.	Was the insurance collected from the underwriters?
5.	If so, how much was insured and how much was collected?
6.	How much was earned by this vessel in the year 1920 after deducting all expenditure of every kind?
7.	Where is she now?

Hon. Mr., BALLANTYNE:
1.	Yes.
2.	3, 4, 5,, 6 and 7. The information asked for is information as to operating details under the Canadian National Railway Board, and is not in possession of the Government. The question as to the desirability in the public interest of securing such and like information and making same available on motion or on question in Parliament is to be considered by a special committee of Parliament.


SS. CANADIAN VOYAGEUR, ETC.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough):: 1.	What was the initial cost of the ss. Canadian Voyageur? When was she first put into commission?
2., How much was spent in repairs to this ship since she was built, up to December 31, 1920?
3.	What was the gross amount earned by this vessel for the calendar year 1920?
4.	What was the gross amount of expenditure of every description in connection with the operation of this vessel for the calendar year ending Deecmber 31, 1920?
5.	What were the net earnings of this vessel from the date when she was first put into commission up to December 31, 1920, after deducting all expenditure of every description?
6.	What were the net earnings of this vessel for the calendar year 1920 after deducting all expenditure of every description?
7.	How many tons of coal did this vessel consume during the calendar year 1920, and what was the average price paid therefor?


Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough) :: 1.	What was the initial cost of the steamships Canadian Gunner, Canadian Farmer, Canadian Victor, Canadian Signaller, and Canadian Miller? When was each of these vessels first put into commission?
2.	How much was spent in repairs to each of these ships since she was built up to December 31, 1920?
3.	What was the gross amount earned by each of these vessels for the calendar year 1920?
4.	What was the gross amount of expenditure of every description in connection with the operation of each of these vessels for the calendar year ending December 31, 1920?
5.	What were the net earnings of each of these vessels from the date when she was first put into commission up to December 31, 1920, after deducting all expenditure of every description ?
6.	What were the net earnings of each of these vessels for the calendar year 1920 after deducting all expenditure of every description?
7.	How many tons of coal did each of these vessels consume during the calendar year 1920 and what wa^ the average price paid therefor?


Mr. DUFF:: 1.	What was the initial cost of the steamships Canadian Conqueror, Canadian Commander,

and Canadian Planter? When was each of these vessels first put into commission?
2.	How much was spent in repairs to each of these ships since she was built up to December 31, 1920?
3.	What was the gross amount earned by each of these vessels for the calendar year 1920?
4.	What was the gross amount of expenditure of every description in connection with the operation of each of these vessels for the calendar year ending December 31, 1920?
5.	What were the net earnings of each of these vessels from the date when she was first put into commission up to December 31, 1920, after deducting all expenditure of every description?
6.	What were the net earnings of each of these vessels for the calendar year 1920 after deducting all expenditure of every description?
7.	How many tons of coal did each of these vessels consume during the calendar year 1920 and what was the average price paid therefor?


Mr. CHISHOLM:: 1.	What was the initial cost of the steamships Canadian Spinner, Canadian Leader, and Canadian Navigator? When was each of these vessels first put into commission?
2.	How much was spent in repairs to each of these ships since she was built up to December 31, 1920?
3.	What was the gross amount earned by each of these vessels for the calendar year 1930?
4.	What was the gross amount: of expenditure of every description in connection with the operation of each of these vessels for the calendar year ending December 31, 1920?
5.	What were the net earnings of each of these vessels from the date when she was first put into commission up to December 31, 1920, after deducting all expenditure of every description ?
6.	What were the net earnings of each of these vessels for the calendar year 19'2Q after deducting all expenditure of every description?
7.	How many tons of coal did' each of these vessels consume during the calendar year 1920 and what was the average price paid therefor?


Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough) :: 1.	What was the initial cost of the ss. Canadian Otter? When was she first put into commission?
2.	How much was spent in repairs to this ship since she was built up to December 31, 1920?
"3. What was the gross amount earned by this vessel for the calendar year 1920?
4.	What was the gross amount of expenditure of every description in connection with the operation of this vessel for the calendar year ending December 31, 1920?
5.	What were the net earnings of this vessel from the date when she was first put into commission up to December 31, 1920, after deducting all expenditure of every description?
6.	What were the net earrings of this vessel for the calendar year 1920 after deducting all expenditure of every description?
7.	How many tons of coal did this vessel consume during the calendar year 1920 and what was the average price paid therefor?


Mr. PACAUD:: 1.	What was the initial cost of the steamships Canadian Ranger and Seigneur and when were they first put into commission?
2.	How much was spent in repairs to each of these ships since she was (built up to December 31, 1920?
3.	What was the gross amount earned by each of these vessels for the calendar year 1920 ?
4.	What was the gross amount of expenditure of every description in connection with the operation of each of these vessels for the calendar year ending December 31, 1920?
5.	What were the net earnings of each of these vessels from the date when she was first put into commission up to December 31, 192*0, after deducting all expenditure of every description?
6.	What Were the net earnings of each of these vessels for the calendar year 1920, after deducting all expenditure of every description?
7.	How many tons of coal did each of these vessels consume during the calendar year 1920, and what was the average price paid therefor?


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	What was the initial cost of the steamships Canadian Squatter and Pioneer and when were they first put into commission?
2.	How much was spent in repairs to each of these ships since she was ibuilt .up to December 31, 1920?
3.	What was the gross amount earned by each of these vessels for the calendar year 1920?
4.	What was the gross amount of expenditure of every description in connection with the operation of each of these vessels for the calendar year ending December 31, 1920?
' 5. What were the net earnings of each of these vessels from the date when she was first put into commission up to December 31, 1920, after deducting all expenditure of every description?
6.	What were the net earnings of each of these vessels for the calendar year 1920, after deducting, all expenditure of every description?
7.	How many tons of coal did each of these vessels consume during the calendar year 1920, and what was the average price paid therefor?


Hon. Mr. BALLANTYNE:: The answers to the foregoing questions are as follows:
1. Name of ship-Initial contract cost- When commissioned:-"Voyageur," $947,-
025.00,	February 22, 1919; "Gunner," $815,541.25, Nov. 6, 1919; "Farmer," $713,-
520.00,	April 28, 1920; "Victor," $1,433,-
610.00,	Aug. 25, 1920; "Signaller," $814,926.25, Aug. 30, 1919; "Miller," $1,577,-
320.00,	Sept. 24, 1919; "Conquerer," $1,-
429,190.00,	Sept. 30, 1920; "Commander," not finished; "Planter," $1,579,075.00, May 7, 1920; "Spinner," $1,577,884.00, Dec. 6, 1919; "Leader," not finished; "Navigator," $984,915.00, Nov 22, 1919; "Otter," not finally ascertained, Aug. 18, 1920; "Ranger," $1,575,816.00, May 23, 1919; "Seigneur," $1,577,508.00, Aug. 14, 1919; "Squatter," not finally ascertained, Nov. 12, 1920; "Pioneer," $1,513,440.00, May 9, 1919.

2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. The information asked for is information as to operating details under the Canadian National Railway Board, and is not in possession of the Government. The question as to the desirability in the public interest of securing such and like information and making same available on motion or on question in Parliament is to be considered by a special committee of Parliament.


DOMINION NOTES-SECURITIES
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough):: With reference to the answer relating to Dominion Note Circulation found on page 1048 unrevised Hansard,-What are the approved securities referred to forming part of the basis of the issue of $137,115,075 Dominion Notes?


Right Hon.   S@: Dominion of Canada bonds and treasury bills; bonds of the provinces of Canada and Canadian municipalities; Canadian Northern Railway Company notes; Canadian Pacific Railway debenture stock; British Government treasury bills; Dominion of New Zealand bonds; Union of South Africa bonds; certain industrial bonds and stocks; assignments of grain and produce and demand notes of commercial houses endorsed by the banks to the order of the Minister of Finance.


UPPER CROSSING, ST. ROCH, LIGHT
Mr. FAFARD:: 1.	Is the Government aware of the resignation of Mr. Fournier, lighthouse-keeper of the Upper Crossing, St. Roch?
2.	If so, when did he resign?
3.	Has anyone been appointed to the position?
4.	If so, was he appointed by the Civil Service Commission?
5.	If not, when will an appointment he made?


Hon. Mr. BALLANTYNE:: 1.	Yes, Alfred Fournier was lightkeeper at Upper Crossing, St. Roch, officially known as Upper Traverse.
2.	April 30, 1920.
3.	Yes, Gustave Fournier.
4.	Yes.
5.	Answered by No. 3.


ST. JOHN HARBOUR, N.B.
Mr. FAFARD:: 1.	What amount of money has been expended by the Publics Works Department at St. John Harbour, N.B., from the year 1900 to 1920?
2.	What amount does the Public Works Department intend to spend during this year?


Hon Mr. McCURDY:: 1.	$14,283,857.94.
2.	The exact amount cannot be stated at the present time. There was expended
in 1920-21, $1,233,941.23. Item placed in Estimates for 1921-22, $1,250,000.00.


ALGERNON ROCK PIER.
Mr. FAFARD:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Government to put an Aga gas apparatus on the pier at Algernon Rock?
2.	If so, will it be installed this year?


Hon. Mr. BALLANTYNE:: 1.	No, not at present.
2,	Answered by No. 1.


PRINTING BUREAU BUILDING
*Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	Was an addition to the Government Printing Bureau built during the past year?
2.	If so, were tenders called by public advertisement, and, in such case, who were the tenderers, and what were their respective prices?
3.	If not, why?
4.	Who was the contractor for the addition, and what was his price?
5.	(a) What will be the total cost of the addition, and (b) how much has yet to be paid thereon?


Hon. Mr. McCURDY:: 1. Yes, two additions.
2 and 3. Yes, first addition, tenders received February 11, 1920; Bate, McMahon & Co. $20,263; Grant Bros. $21,576; Doran & Devlin $22,700; Ross, Meagher Co. $26,054.
Second addition, tenders received July 12, 1920; Geo. C. Graves Construction Co. $89,103.
4.	First addition, Bate, McMahon & Co., $20,263;
Second addition, Geo. C. Graves Con. Co., $89,103.
5.	(a) Final estimate to Bate, McMahon
& Co., $20,831.55; final estimate to Geo. C. Graves Con. Co., $90,154.50;	(b)
Nothing.


HOUSE OF COMMONS-DIVISION AFTER A RECESS
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Shelburne and Queen's):: Mr. Speaker, With your permission I would like to ask the attention of the House for a moment to what might be called a question of privilege, I suppose, though it does not concern me any more than any other member of the House. It is to a telegram from Ottawa in the Montreal Gazette of Wednesday concerning the division of the previous evening. The correspondent writes:
It has been an unwritten rule of Parliament since confederation that there would be no vote on the day following a recess. This was an amenity of Parliament that has never been violated until to-day by the new Liberal leader.

I believe, Sir, I have to plead guilty to being now one of the oldest members of Parliament. I think there are only two, possibly three, who were here before me. With about twenty years of experience, I want to say that I have never heard of such a rule. I have consulted a number of the older members of the House, each one of whom tells me that he never heard of such a rule. It is quite evident, therefore, that the Gazette correspondent was misinformed and mislead.


GRAND TRUNK-PORTLAND TERMINUS
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. PIUS MICHAUD (Restigouche):: Is the Minister of Railways (Mr. Reid) aware of a dispatch published yesterday morning, coming from Portland, Maine, which reads as follows:
The Grand Trunk Railway steamship terminus . here will be enlarged and improved at a cost of approximately $500,000, officials of the railway said to-day. Construction will begin May 1. Plans have been approved for an immigration examination and detention building to provide accommodations for the handling of 1,000 passengers a day.
Is it true or not?


Hon. J. D. REID (Minister of Railways and Canals):: I have seen the item. I wrote a note to Mr. Kelley and asked him what he had to say in that connection. He has replied as follows:
There is no truth in the above item from Portland. Such work as is to be undertaken by the Grand Trunk at that point is merely in the nature of ordinary renewal of the wharves, piling, etc.
Mr. Kelley signs that note.


CIVIL SERVICE HOLIDAYS
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. JOSEPH ARCHAMBAULT:: (Cham-bly and Vercheres) :	I would like to
direct the attention of the Government to the fact that question No. 1, has been standing on the Order Paper since the opening of the session. It is as follows:
1.	Is it true that contrary to the formal promise of Sir Robert Borden in Parliament, at the last session, the civil servants of the Government have been forced to work on Catholic religious holidays, notably on the following: Ail Saint's Bay, Immaculate Conception, Epiphany?
2.	If so, for what reason has the Government acted thus?
This is a very important question; at the same time, I do not see why the Government does not answer it.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Prime Minister) :: The question will be
answered very shortly. I started the process of reading many pages of Hansard with a view of getting the whole purport of the debate on the subject but I shall be able to give an answer the first of the week, I think.



BUSINESS OP THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
William Stevens Fielding: I would like to suggest to my
right hon. friend the Prime Minister that he reconsider the decision already made with regard to the taking of Wednesday as a Government day. I quite realize his desire to advance Government business, but there is a large number of motions on the Order Paper, and if the opportunity is denied to members to bring them up in the ordinary way they will be driven to bring them up in some other less direct way. I really do not think that the taking of Wednesday at this stage will facilitate the business of the House. I will not ask my right hon. friend to answer now, but I suggest that he give the matter his'thought.


Arthur Meighen: In relation to that question,
while I should not give a final negative at the moment, I want to say this-and it is no more in relation to one side than to another, this first sentence at least: There is not a motion on the Order Paper that has not been called and passed by twice, if not three or four times, since the beginning of the session. I recall one day in particular when the whole forty-six resolutions by private members were called and not one hon. member was ready to go on. It is true that the resolutions are still there and that possibly other means will be resorted to to have them proceeded with. But the Government must have regard to the fact that I have stated, because if we keep extending the time there will never be any very great desire on the part of an hon. member to go on with his motion at a time when he really has an opportunity to do so.


William Stevens Fielding: I think my right hon.
friend must be under a misapprehension when he says these motions have been called again and again. I have two motions on the Order Paper and to the best of my knowledge and belief they have never been called. I spent a whole day here waiting for one to be called, but it was not reached. If my right hon. friend will look into the

matter more carefully he will see that some of these motions have never been called. I know that two of my motions have never been called, at least when I was present, and I am a pretty regular attendant at the sittings of the House.


Arthur Meighen: I would not be certain that what I have said applies to the Jast three or four motions, but it applied to forty-six on one day; I know that, because I noted it. The hon. member (Mr. Fielding) put his on more recently; though I was under the impression\that his first motion had been called once.


William Stevens Fielding: They were not put on so very recently.



PROPOSED EMPIRE CABINET

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Charles Murphy: For the purpose of addressing a question to my right hon. friend the leader of the Government I desire to call his attention to a report published in the London Times on the 17th inst. giving a summary of a debate in the New Zealand House of Representatives on the question of whether the Prime Minister of New Zealand should attend the approaching conference of overseas Prime Ministers in London. After mentioning the somewhat unimportant features of the debate, in which Mr. Massey participated, that gentleman is credited with saying:
He believed there wpuld soon be an Empire constitution and a recognized organization, which he thought should take the form of an Imperial Executive, with the British Prime Minister as President. This executive should consist of representatives of Great Britain, the Dominions, the Dependencies, and India, and it should be responsible to the British and Dominion Parliaments. It should meet at least biennally, and it should be responsible for foreign policy, treaties, and declarations of war and peace.
My question is, whether the right hon. the Prime Minister has any knowledge of the proposed creation of such an Empire Cabinet or Imperial Executive, and if so, whether he has any information, to give the House on the subject.


Arthur Meighen: I have not seen the despatch. The conception embodied in the despatch may be in accordance with the mind and intention of the Prime Minister of New Zealand. I have not subscribed to it.



THE AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Joseph Archambault: Mr. Speaker, the commit-
88 .
tee on public accounts is a very important committee of this House but in order that it may proceed with its business it is necessary that the committee have before it the fourth volume of the Auditor General's report. On the twenty-second instant, when I asked for that volume, the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) answered me in this way: "I expect it will be tabled at the end of the month." This is the last day of the month and I wish to ask the minister when he expects that his expectation will be realized.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON (Minister of Finance) :: The hon. gentleman realizes that no one is more anxious than I am to get that report down, because I seem to get all the blame for something with which I have nothing to do. I have been following the matter up, however, and pressing the work on a gentleman over whom I have no control. But I am glad now to be able to tell the House that I think the very last bit of copy went down yesterday afternoon to the Printing Bureau. There are some five or six hundred folios, and by having the work proceeded with at night as well as by day I think we shall be able to have the fourth volume laid on the Table early in the week.

The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Boivin in the Chair:
Trade and Commerce-bounties on crude *petroleum, administration of the Act, $3,000.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Before you proceed
with this item, Sir, the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) said last night that he intended to proceed with the Estimates of the Labour Department to-day. The Estimates of that department have not been taken up previously, and I will object to their being proceeded with to-day. Before we proceed with the estimates of the Labour Department, I have a few remarks to make about the hon. gentleman who presides over that department and about certain matters concerning it.


Mr. DENIS:: I have been using a copy
of the Estimates printed in French. I have no copy of the Estimates in English, and I object to proceeding with the Estimates unless we have English copies.


George Green Foster: Does the hon.
member object to the committee proceeding with the Estimates because he has not a copy of them in hand? These Estimates were printed as usual and a copy was placed in the box of every member weeks ago. My hon. friend has allowed his copy to drop out of his pocket. He must not



hold us all up because he has happened to lose his copy.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I stated that I have only a French copy of the Estimates; I have not an English copy, and I do not think it is an answer to say that the Estimates have been distributed once. My objection can be withdrawn, but we will discuss these Estimates in French, and I want to know if the Government is willing to proceed on that understanding.


Mr. CANNON:: In support of my hon.
friend's contention, last week I applied for a copy of the Estimates in English, and I was told by the distribution office that they had none in hand. I hold here a copy of the Estimates in French. I have no objection whatsoever to holding a French copy; it suits me better to discuss the Estimates in French than it would to discuss them in English; but on the other hand, as my hon. friend (Mr. Denis) has said, as we have in our possession only copies of the Estimates in French, it would be only reasonable and natural that we should carry on the discussion in the language in which the Estimates are printed.


Mr. MARCIL:: The minister speaks in
French now. We can proceed.


Mr. CAHILL:: What does the term "administration of the Act'' mean in this case?


George Green Foster: This appropriation has been passed every year for a long series of years. The object is to pay the salary and expenses of the officer or officers supervising the payment of the bounty upon crude petroleum oil. That bounty is granted, of course, by Act of Parliament; it has to be paid out under the regulations of the department, and the $3,000 is to pay for the supervisor and his aids, and for contingencies and travelling expenses. The work of the supervisor fs to see that all claims that are made for payment of bounty are correct, to compare them and to issue his certificate as to their payment.


Frank S. Cahill: What amount of bounties has been paid? Or are any bounties being paid?


George Green Foster: The bounties
paid for the fiscal year 1918-19 on crude petroleum oil amounted to $162,187; for 1919-20, to $103,753; and for 1920-21 up to January 31, to $70,908.


Frank S. Cahill: WThat people were the
bounties paid to?


George Green Foster: To the producers of the oil in two or three counties in Ontario where petroleum is produced; in New Brunswick where some oil is produced from the shales; and in Alberta where some oil coming under this Act is produced. The main part is paid to producers of oil in some two or three Ontario counties.


Lucien Cannon: (Translation.) Are those grants paid by the Government simply to individual owners of oil wells, or are they also paid to corporations and companies, say, for instance, the Imperial Oil and other trusts, which sell the oil at such a high price?


George Green Foster: I must ask my hon. friend to speak a little louder and a little more distinctly, and especially to couch his question in particularly good French, so that it will commend itself to my ear.


Lucien Cannon: I am quite sure-


George Green Foster: That is better.


Lucien Cannon: I am quite sure my right hon. friend is too modest. He has taken part in several conferences overseas; he has represented Canada with much honour and dignity at the Peace Conference; he has also represented our country at Geneva; and last year at the opening of Parliament, much to the pleasure and appreciation of hon. members on this side of the House, acting as Prime Minister of our country he delivered a magnificent, able, and, as usual, very eloquent speech in the French language. I am quite sure my right hon. friend understands French just as well as I do, and I a*n inclined to think he speaks French even better than I can speak it myself. But for the convenience, not of my right hon. friend who is a very noted bi-linguist, but of other members who might not be so conversant with the French language, I will proceed in English. I do not do so, however, for the convenience of my right hon. friend because I am sure he could carry on the discussion in French. The question I put to the minister is this: Are those premiums paid by the Government simply to individual owners of petroleum wells, or are they also paid to corporations and companies, say, for instance, the Imperial Oil and those very large trust companies which sell the oil at such a high price that I do not see why we give them premiums at all?


George Green Foster: The premiums are paid in all cases to the people who produce the oil.	*


Lucien Cannon: Are any premiums paid to corporations or companies?


George Green Foster: I think not.


Lucien Cannon: The right hon. gentleman says he thinks not. I would like to be sure on that point. As far as I am concerned, I do not think this House ought to pay a cent of bounty to any corporation like the Imperial Oil, and before we proceed any further with this item I would like the minister to make sure whether premiums are paid to this corporation. If they are being paid, I think he ought to see to it that they are not paid in future. This Government is not rich enough to give money to the Imperial Oil Company, the Standard Oil Company, or Rockefeller. We have heavy enough financial obligations to meet without throwing away our money to people who are richer than the Government itself.


George Green Foster: If I might be allowed to interfere, at the expense of my hon. friend's well-turned and eloquent periods, I will give him the information absolutely that the bounties are paid only to those who produce the oil, so neither Rockefeller nor the Imperial Oil Company gets a squint at it.


Mr. McMASTER:: It does not seem to me to be of essential difference whether this bounty is paid to a large company or to a small operator. I wish to state to the committee, and I think that what I say will have a responsive echo in the country, if not in the House, that for the Government to bonus an industry which is able to sell its products at the prices at which coal oil products are selling now is, in view of the present financial condition of the country, most unwise, to use the most modest term.


George Green Foster: Can't you make it a little stronger? .


Andrew Ross McMaster: I would say it was rank, raging lunacy, to' speak plainly. In view of the respect which I have for the minister I couched my language in the most modest and gentle terms.


George Green Foster: In the interests of my hon. friend himself will he allow me to intervene for a moment? I have noted the hard language which he has applied to this policy of bonusing. Does my hon. friend know that that policy was inaugurated in 1904, that it was re-inaugurated in 1907 and 1908, that it is there on the statute books by virtue of the con-
884 '
centrated wisdom of the Liberal Government to which my hon. friend paid allegiance, and which he considers to be one of the finest Governments that ever existed, in Canada? It is ungrateful of my hon. friend after all the prominence that his party has given to it to stand up behind his aged and revered leader (Mr. Fielding) and tax him with introducing a policy of rank and unadulterated lunacy.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I have listened to the defence of this policy of bonusing by probably the ablest man on the opposite side of the House, and it has taken the form of chiding me because the Liberal party, when I was not in the House, did something which I trust I would have opposed then as I oppose it now.


George Green Foster: But you sacrificed at their altars then.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I have this to say. I have always been against bonusing, I have always been against protection; I think it is a mistake, and that it was a mistake when it was brought about by the party to which I gave my allegiance at that time, and to which I give my allegiance now. I would, however, make this observation, and I believe the minister will consider it reasonable, that when the public debt of Canada was between $250,000,000 and $300,000,000 there was more excuse

I do not say more reason-


George Green Foster: In principle?


Andrew Ross McMaster: There was more excuse for the giving of bonuses then, than there is at a time when, as I am sure the minister will agree, the financial condition of this country is a very serious one indeed. I hope that the minister will see his way clear, even if it is necessary to bring down legislation for that purpose to stop bonusing this industry, which I do not believe requires bonusing. If it has been bonused since 1904, it is about time it stood on its own feet, about time that the cask of petroleum stood on its own bottom. I protest energetically against what I consider to be this waste of public funds. I protests against the giving of bonuses by a country in the financial condition in which we find ourselves to-day.


George Green Foster: I am only
administering the Act.


Mr. GRIESBACH:: I should like to ask the minister how he reconciles the policy of bunusing oil production with the policy of collecting royalties on oil production, as we have it in the West?


George Green Foster: If my Ron. friend or others are interested in looking at the history of this particular transaction, they will fin'd, I think, that the bonus was given to the oil producers at the time when the duty was taken off crude potroleum entering this country from the United States and other contries. When petroleum was made free, on the theory that it would be of great general benefit, it was felt by those who were administering the aifairs of the country at that time that the producers of oil should he compensated for this introduction of free petroleum-That was the theory on which the bounty was paid.


Lucien Cannon: I asked the minister whether large corporations like the Imperial Oil were getting any of these bounties, and he answered that he thought they were not. He was not very explicit in his answer. He did not say that no public moneys were being given to these very large corporations, these trusts which are crushing the people of Canada, and to which we should not give a cent.


George Green Foster: I think my hon. friend must be wrong with reference to my assertion. I think I told him that the bounties were given simply to the producers of oil, and not to companies who do not produce or raise the oil.


Lucien Cannon: But suppose the Imperial Oil Company is the producer of oil on certain lands. Would they get a bonus for producing oil? That is what I want to know.


George Green Foster: The Act, of course, provides how the money shall be paid. The provision, as I find it here-


Lucien Cannon: I understand the
minister is about to tell the committee how the payments are made, but that is not the information I want; we can come to that later. I want to know whether the Imperial Oil Company, if it produces oil on lands in Canada, is entitled to this bounty. Should the Government pay premiums to the Imperial Oil Company?


George Green Foster: I will read the section of the Act to my hon. friend, who I believe is a lawyer:
The sai-d bounty to be paid to or divided among the producers of the petroleum, the owner or occupier of the soil through which it is mined or won, or such other person interested, or injuriously affected by the mining operations or works as the Governor i-n Council by regulation approves.
I think that explains, it.


Lucien Cannon: If I understand the minister rightly, that means that the Imperial Oil Company occupy, own, or lease land upon which oil is produced. Then they would receive a bounty from the Government?


George Green Foster: Being a producer, they would, I suppose.


Lucien Cannon: The minister says they would. I want to know, has the Imperial Oil Company, as a fact, received a bounty?


George Green Foster: Now my hon. friend asks a question as to a specific point. I have not the information, but my own impression is that tne vast majority of the bounty is paid to the small producers of oil throughout the different districts. I am not prepared to say that there is not a company producing oil in those districts and that no such company is getting the bounty upon what it produces.


Lucien Cannon: Now I desire to call the attention of the committee to this point: About ten days ago my hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King) complained that we had not sufficient information to enable us to discuss the Estimates intelligently. The Prime Minister's attention was drawn to the fact that the fourth volume of the Auditor General's report had not been brought down yet, and that therefore the members on this side as well as hon. gentlemen opposite could not possibly consider the Estimates with that degree of care and scrutiny which is only proper. In reply to that representation, the right hon. gentleman who leads the House gave the formal and definite assurance that no items would be discussed unless information in connection therewith were first available to hon. members. If my right hon. friend refers to page 2 of the index of volume III of the Auditor General's report he will find therein stated that details in connection with crude petroleum are to be fomrn under " Z-23 Now, " Z-23 " is not in our hands; it is in the fourth volume. In view of the assurance given us by the Prime Minister I would ask my right hon. friend to postpone this item.


George Green Foster: Item stands.


The CHAIRMAN:: Sir George Foster moves that further consideration of item 346 be postponed.


Mr. POWER:: Mr. Chairman, before we leave this item-


Georges Henri Boivin: I am very sorry, but the motion to postpone consideration of an item is not debatable.
Item stands.
Bounty on Linen Yarn spun in Canada from Canadian Flax, including expenses of supervision,' under Order in Council of September 3, 1918, $26,000.


Mr. MORPHY:: I desire some information regarding this item, in view of the present condition of the flax market in Canada, and also in view of some letters I have received regarding the loss already sustained and the further loss which is anticipated by those who have produced flax, particularly in western Ontario. I am in formed that the flax men throughout that part of the Dominion stand to be ruined one after another by the decline in the prevailing prices, whicn have fallen con siderably since last year. I cannot give the prices in detail except as regards seea, which I understand was a year ago $6 a bushel and now has dropped $1.50. I have a communication from certain men wh>. say that they stand to be ruined by the; conditions under which they have to work. Now, I notice that the item this year is being reduced by the sum of $4,000. If the principle is a sound one of assisting, by way of bonus, the manufacture of lipen, I think this is a most inopportune time in the history of the country to make any reduction in this grant. On the contrary, I think it ought to be increased. Is the minister or his department seized of the extreme distress in trade that now exists and is likely to be aggravated by the failure of the flax producers to dispose either of their fibre or of their seed? If the matter has been brought to the attention of the Government or of the minister, I snould like to know what activities are in progress in the department to ameliorate the very serious conditions which have overtaken the flax interests, as a direct outcome, I fancy, of the war.


George Green Foster: The department over which I preside has had numerous communications from flax growers, par-ticlurly in the province of Ontario, regarding the difficulties under which they are labouring at the present time, difficulties which are summed up in the fact stated by my hon. friend, that the prices for either fibre or seed have very suddenly and largely dropped from those that prevailed a year or two ago. The hon. gentleman very properly said that he supposed this resulted from the general war conditions.
It is a disability being suffered not only by flax producers but also, more or less, by the producers of very many of the staple articles of the country. For instance, I see that July wheat is selling on the Chicago market to-day at $1.25, which is a great come-down fro mthe price of $2.08 to $3.00 per bushel which prevailed on the market a year or so ago. The Department of Trade and Commerce cannot, of course, undertake to keep up prices nor to remunerate producers who have on hand stocks which they cannot get rid of at former prices and which consequently they must sell at a loss. But it is working in conjunction with these producers in an endeavour to find as profitable markets as possible in the different parts of the foreign field, and our trade commissioners are specially charged at the present time with this matter, being in possession of information which has been supplied me by the flax growers themselves. I do not know what will be the outcome. I am afraid there is not very much hope that these products, either fibre or seed, will regain anything like the values which they have had in the preceding three or four years. The special item under consideration is not intended as a relief to producers of flax. It is a child of the war, and the action which resulted in this bounty being granted for a period of three years was a direct outcome of the necessities of the war. At a certain time Canada found herself unable to get linen thread or yarn, either from the United States or from Great Britain, and this article was called for from all parts of the country for use by fishermen as well as for manufacturing purposes of various kinds. The War Commission, which was functioning at that time, took the matter up on the suggestion of Council, and in the end an Order in Council was passed by which it was proposed to give a bounty for the manufacture of linen thread and yarns of certain sizes, the bounty to be payable for three years after the Peace Treaty had been put into force, but not to be payable to the manufacturers of these yarns until the war had ended. The theory was that if manufacturers installed the equipment necessary for the production of these yarns, which had not before been made in Canada, the prices which could be charged for them, owing to the scarcity of the article, would be sufficient remuneration for the time that the war lasted, but-as this was an unusual and an emergent thing-when the war was

over, and supplies were available in greater quantity, the prices would tend to recede. Then the bounty was to take effect, and be paid according to the scale agreed upon, for three years after the war had ended. Some manufacturers undertook to equip their factories; but only one has really provided the required equipment, the owner, I think, of a factory at Guelph. That factory is now not only making linen yarns out of the Canadian product, but is also turning-out a superior quality of linen goods of the coarser and of the finer kinds as well.
I have seen an exhibition of these goods- either in Ottawa or in some other city-[DOT] and they certainly are of excellent make; the quality of the fibre and the finish of the product seems to be everything that can be asked. To the extent that they manufacture, they may avail themselves of the bounty as given on these yarns up to the maximum; but in no year may the bounty paid to all manufacturers of yarns exceed $25,000, nor is it in the three years to exceed the sum of $75,000. The vote asked for here is for the purpose of paying the bounty as agreed upon, and as I have explained to the committee. The sum is smaller than was estimated for previously, and even the amount of this estimate may be reduced somewhat-in fact I am going to ask that it be reduced-simply because it is impossible for the manufacturers to absorb that sum of money out of the current year for which this estimate is being voted, and there is not much use of carrying in the Estimates an amount beyond the sum which can be absorbed.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The explanation of the minister with regard to the reason of the decrease is quite satisfactory to me, but I would like some further information as to the activities of his trade commissioners. I would like to know who they are, where they are located, what they are doing, and how hard they are working to assist the men who did answer the call in this country for production for national purposes of material for the manufacture of linen, and whether or not these producers are being treated by the trade commissioners with that consideration to which they are entitled. I am told that in England the warehouses are bulging to the roofs with linen, that ther never was in England the scarcity that is alleged, but that they had there all the yarn they wanted; and yet the manufacturers and farmers of this country were pleaded with by this Government to "go to'it," to do their best, and to produce, and produce, and produce. Now they find themselves up against the wall,

and I want to know from the minister just how hard his trade commissioners are working. I want to know where they are working, and what they are
4	p.m. doing to ameliorate this unfortunate condition into which the flax industry has been thrown, and I think probably unfairly thrown by-may I use a mild term?-English commercial greed.
I may be misinformed-if I am I would like the minister to tell me-but I wish to know whether it is true that during the war, and at all times since, the English linen producer, and the United Kingdom producer generally, has had all the yarn he wanted and that he could have supplied some to Canada and relieved the situation here, had he been actuated by a little more consideration of the difficulties under which this country laboured as the outcome of the war.


George Green Foster: As to whether the trade commissioners are acting fairly by this interest, as by other interests-


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I did not say "acting
fairly," my question was as to whether they are working actively.


George Green Foster: As to whether they are working actively in comparison with their efforts in other directions I think I can answer that by a very strong affirmative. They have received special instructions outside of those relating to their general duty, and I must say with regard to our present staff of trade commissioners that I think they are a set of men whose intelligence, honesty, and assiduity cannot be successfully criticized. They work not only because they are paid a salary, but because they are instructed in their work. They are enthusiastic in the performance of their duties, and the intimate relations the department holds with them, and the statements of the men who travel in those countries where they are and should come into contact with these commissioners, affords evidence to back up the assertion that I have made. I honestly believe that we have amongst our trade staff to-day, our commissioners abroad, a better set of men than we have ever had. I believe that we have a most satisfactory staff which will compare with the staff maintained by any other country.
Now as to what it is possible for them to do, that is a different matter. If prices have gone down, the shoulders of all the trade commissioners are not strong enough to boost those prices agaisnt world conditions. That is a situation that the trade itself comes up against and that the com-

missioners are powerless to overcome. All they can do is to seek out any possible avenues that are available for the exchange of these products in the countries in which they have their work set out, and that they are doing. But the countries are not very many that take these products. Great Britain itself has absorbed them in the past. The manufacturers there have paid highly for the flax seed, and the fibre as well, that they have got in Canada, and they prize these commodities just as highly as before. But they have stocks on hand more than sufficient for their own use, and they will not buy fresh stocks when they stand face to face with the market, in a measure, as our own producers of flax fibre stand. I am convinced that three or four years ago the conditions of the market were such that neither the United States nor Great Britain could, in justice to their own people, satisfy the requirements of our people. They did it to a certain extent, but gradually we came up against the impossibility of getting any supplies from either one country or the other- There is one thing that lights up the situation somewhat, and that is that this factory which is at present making fibres from these yarns has demonstrated that Canadian material and machinery, backed by Canadian enterprise and technical skill, can make the product from the root up in this country of such a quality as will bear comparison with the product turned out in Ireland, Belgium and other countries where this industry has been established for many generations.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I am very much pleased to hear that the minister has such a remarkably active and well equipped staff, and I am sorry indeed to find that he is forced to confess that his staff is absolutely helpless under the circumstances to afford any grain of comfort at all. But in his long narration concerning his excellent staff the minister has not told us of a single instance where any of his men have endeavoured to ameliorate the serious conditions under which our producers of flax are labouring. His men, I presume, are scattered all over the world. What I asked him was whether he has been getting reports from any of his staff containing suggestions that would assist our people here to dispose of the product of their factories that they cannot work up for the foreign market because the banks have refused them accommodation. The situation is more serious, I think, than the minister realizes. To use his own words, the manufacturers of this country undertook to establish equipment for the working up of these products, but only one manufacturer lived up to the undertaking. I would like to know the names of the manufacturers who failed to redeem their promise. Let us see who they are and why they failed.


George Green Foster: My hon. friend pushes me pretty tightly up against the wall. What answer would he make if he were in my place? I will put myself in his place and answer. He does not impugn the efficiency of our trade commissioners. If he did I would have to defend them, and I could do so with a perfectly honest heart. But what can men do under the circumstances? My trade commissioners cannot go down into Ontario and lift one ounce from the load these people have to bear. The only hope of relief is in extended markets. To secure extended markets you must go outside of Canada. That is what our trade commissioners are doing, but they are up against the conditions of the market in other countries just as our people are up against the conditions of the market here; and if the market is overstocked, and consequently prices are low, no trade commissioner can raise those prices or alter the general conditions. My hon- friend spoke about those manufacturers who gave a certain undertaking. Our action was in the nature of trying to get people to supply the need that existed at the time; and when the War Commission took the matter up they had communication with more than one manufacturer, but only one succeeded in establishing the proper equipment, and he is to-day manufacturing the goods. The others did not come under any bond and they could not be compelled to do anything. They would only get the subsidy when they produced the goods, and they would take upon themselves the responsibility of the equipment in view of the bounty which would be paid for the three years after the war while their equipment would be working. I do not think I can give my hon. friend any clearer answer than that.


Mr. CURRIE:: In looking over the trade papers I notice that a short time ago there was a convention in Brussels or Antwerp of representatives of various countries with a view to fixing the prices of linen fibre and linen, the trade being in a bad way in all countries. Did we have a representative there?


George Green Foster: I do not
remember if we had one at that particular meeting, but I should not have much faith

in the power of a convention to fix prices which would stand against world conditions as they are to-day.


John Allister Currie: It was a meeting of flax growers and flax manufacturers at which England, Ireland, Germany, France and Japan were represented, and they made an effort to fix a minimum price of, I think, seven cents. I do not know whether they were successful or not. But the condition is world-wide, it is not confined to Canada alone.


George Green Foster: Certainly not.


Mr. BEST:: I would not think of criticising the members of this commission, but I understand that the purpose of the commission is to give information to the general public. Now it may be working very hard, but if it had done its duty, it seems to me it should have got information two or three years ago as to what would be the actual conditions after the war, because, if this had been done, many of our farmers in Ontario would not be in their present unsatisfactory position. We were led to believe that there was a great shortage of flax and linen and that for some years to come the price would be on a paying basis. But after going into the business quite extensively our farmers find this year that all along there was plenty of yarn and linen piled up in the Old Country. Why did not the commission know those conditions and report them to our farmers? I noticed in one of the leading papers a few days ago that some one had stated that Ontario fibre was not as good as Belgian or Irish fibre. We have at Ottawa a flax expert who states that the best quality Ontario fibre is equal to any that is produced either in Belgium or Ireland. The other statement will certainly hurt the sale of our fibre. Why does not the commission criticise that adverse statement? Why does it not come out and tell the world that our fibre is as good as any fibre that can be produced, as we are led to believe it is? Japan and many other countries have warehouses right in Belfast, where, from the information I have received, they manufacture more linen than in any other part of the world, and people can go to those warehouses and select what they want. The buyers on the other side do not want to buy it in lots of a few pounds, and they will not come over here and buy it in Ontario because the manufacturers there buy different grades of fibre. We should have a warehouse there as other countries have to which our fibre could be shipped and 
where the purchaser could select what he wanted and pay for it. I think that this commission should surely be able to furnish some information to the growers of Ontario. Commissions of that kind should give full information about conditions in other countries. I feel quite satisfied that if the farmers in Ontario, and I think some in Quebec, had known one or two years ago what the conditions would be they would not be suffering the losses that they are likely to suffer this year.


Joseph Archambault: The farmers of Quebec did not go into any large cultivation of flax.


John Best: Some small quantities were produced there, I believe.


Mr. COWAN:: May I ask the minister whether the manufacturers of these linen goods in Canada are giving to the trade commissioners that co-operation which is necessary if trade in the foreign fields is to be captured? I understand that the trade commissioners are a thoroughly capable body of men who are performing their work in an excellent manner. But it has been stated and we had a man speaking on this subject a short time ago in one of the rooms in this building-that the manufacturers of Canada have not any agents in the foreign field. I know of two men who have been all around the world, who visited every commercial field, but wjho met no salesmen anywhere representing Canadian firms. It seems to me that the Canadian manufacturers of linen are relying entirely upon the Government and upon the trade commisioners to advance their interests, and I do not think it is possible for the trade commissioners to do anything of that kind. The trade commissioner cannot have that intimate knowledge of every line of business which is necessary to the effecting of a sale. Salesmanship to-day involves an accurate knowledge of the article which it is intended to sell, and it is impossible for the human mind-in this case, for the trade commissioner-to grasp the salient features of every line of business, and thus be able to effect the largest possible number of sales. Has the minister any information which would show whether or not Canadian manufacturers are actively engaged in the promotion of Canadian business abroad? If they are not, it is time they awakened to the necessities of the situation.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Are we under any moral or legal obligations to pay this

$2,000 to the producers of flax yarn? Are we free to withhold the bounty?


George Green Foster: The answer is a very plain one, and as a business man my hon. friend will understand it. The Government entered into a contract; that contract has three years to run and is limited as to the amount that1 can be paid under it. These men, with that signed contract, put their money into the equipment of the business. They put in a splendid equipment and are doing excellent work. The Government, therefore, is not in a position to say: Well, we have not as much money as we used to have; we do not want to pay you anything; we will slide out. As to the question put by the member for Regina (Mr. Cowan), there is a negative and a positive answer. Some manufacturers are wide awake and have their representatives wherever in foreign fields there is a fair chance of making a sale. The trade commissioners were never instituted, never paid, never instructed, to make any sale for any particular party or for any particular corporation. They are not sales agents; the sales agents are to be put in the field by the men who have the commodities to sell. There never can be a thoroughly good foreign trade for this country unless the manufacturers cooperate with the trade commissioners and follow up the information furnished by them. To make your sale of goods to a man you have to sit down before him, first, a thorough master of your business in all its details so that you can meet his every argument, and then if modifications are suggested you have to be able to tell him on the instant: I will take you on that; you have made me an offer; I will take it. Where would your trade commissioners be if they were placed in a position of that kind?
Now, with reference to the flax industry, there are men engaged in that business who are fully alive to the situation and have their representatives in the Old Country and perhaps in other places. We are in constant communication with them and through our trade commissioners in England we help them all we can. I do not think they have any fault to find with the extent of the co-operation offered by the Trade and Commerce Department.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I thank the minister for the explanation which he gave us as to its being impossible for the Canadian people to break this engagement entered
into with the producers of flax yarn. But at the risk of being tiresome may I just observe how this affords a striking example of the unwisdom of endeavouring to bonus into precocious economic life one industry or another? When a Government by bonuses or protection undertakes to interfere with the law of supply and demand, in the long run they do more harm than good.


John Allister Currie: What harm has that factory done?


Andrew Ross McMaster: The member for Duf-ferin (Mr. Best) has just placed before us the fact that inducements were held out to the farmers of Canada to go largely into flax production. It was held out to them that there would be a market for flax through the manufacture of flax into yarn as a result of this bonus.


John Allister Currie: Oh no, the hon. gentleman is altogether wrong.


John Best: I had nothing to say about the manufacturers here. In fact, I believe that if we had three or four similar factories engaged in the manufacture of this commodity, there would be a sale for it. I was only criticising the work of the commissioners in not informing the farmers of the conditions on the other side.


Andrew Ross McMaster: My hon. friend may deduce from the facts different conclusions than those which I arrive at. But I think I am right in saying that he is my authority for the statement that the increase of flax production was substantial; that farmers in Ontario were led to believe that it was a wise thing to go in for the production of flax; that they devoted certain of their land to the production of flax rather than to the raising of other crops, and that today the market for flax is broken and they are suffering a loss. Now I think it is a fair argument that these farmers proceeded as they did because of the hope and the expectation that there would be a considerable market for their crop, and that hope and expectation was no doubt based, in part at least, upon the action of the Government in granting this bonus upon flax yarn. My right hon. friend (Sir George Foster) shakes his head. It seems to me that is a reasonable deduction to draw, and I think most members will draw that deduction. What has happened? The market for flax has slackened and there has been a loss. You will generally find that this is what happens when you bonus, when you stimu-

late artificially one industry rather than another, because you cannot control world supply and world demand, and market prices, in regard to the great staples of production, are created by world supply and world demand. Of course, we must not do what is ethically wrong, seeing that the manufacturers of yarn have altered their position by reason of this contract entered into by the Government. Yet, while perhaps in war conditions, it may not have been improper to give this stimulus, I have always the gravest doubt about the advisability of following such a course, either in war or in peace. I would make this observation, that we have here another example of the unwisdom of interfering with economic laws; that, as a rule, this interference does not help, but hinders and hurts the general interest. Let me give an example. Prior to 1846, protectionist sentiment in the Old Country, largely looked to agriculture; the Corn Laws formed the great keystone of the protectionist arch, and it was agreed that by maintaining what was practically prohibition of imports until the price rose very high on the introduction of foodstuffs into Great Britain, you maintained agriculture in a flourishing condition and that tended to keep people on the land and to maintain an agricultural position.


John Allister Currie: They are doing the same thing in England now.


Andrew Ross McMaster: And they will have the same disastrous results as they had before, I have no doubt. Let me make my point, my hon. friend will or will not agree with me as he sees fit. The point I want to make is that, during these years, while the agricultural interest in England was supposed to be helped by the introduction of heavy duties on foodstuffs coming into that country, the agricultural interest suffered very severely. Every [DOT] few years, parliamentary investigations had to be held to examine into the cause of agricultural distress. And why? Because in lean years, when the harvest was small, the prohibition or the impediments to allowing food to flow into Great Britain were such that prices became very high and rents were fixed on a very high basis. Then when there was a bountiful harvest, prices tended to drop; but rents tended to remain where they were, so that the only people who benefited in any way by the system were the landlords, and even they did not really benefit, because the misery which was thus
[Mr. McMaster.l
imposed on the bulk of the people reacted upon the landlords as well. The committea will pardon this digression, but I want to emphasize the point, and all my reading and experience go to confirm the notion which I have held for years, that it is a great mistake to interfere with economic laws, and that harm and not good is the inevitable consequence of the pursuance of that policy.


George Green Foster: My hon. friend has made his point, or he thinks he has. My contention is that his point was not well taken, and I do not want his argument to proceed from a false assumption. The argument of my hon. friend was: You set up a factory to manufacture yarn and textiles from flax fibre-by setting that up, and in setting that up, the idea you had m mind was to stimulate the production of flax in this country-that idea got abroad amongst the farmers; they produced flax and produced it and produced it on that assumption-and now your factory takes but a small proportion, and the flax producers find themselves with large surpluses which they cannot market. That argument does not apply in this case. The point had in view by the War Trade Board and the Government was not of giving this bonus to a factory to stimulate the production of flax in this country. To a certain extent, the factory would call for a certain proportion of flax that it required for its manufacture. The object in view was a war object and no other. What is wisdom at one time may, as my hon friend said, be unwisdom at another, so that we have to go back to the time which produced the action. What were the grounds upon which the action was taken? I think it well that the committee should know these grounds :
Whereas it appears that no linen thread or yarn has come forward from Great Britain since the first of January, 1918, for the manufacture of Ashing nets, or shoe hemp for military and agricultural harness, or for the manufacture of aeroplane cloth,-
The demand for which was very insistent at that time.

linen thread for military boots,-
And military boots bad to be provided
-machine thread for the manufacture of agri cultural and military harness, or yarns and threads for civilian use in Canada.
That was the basis. It was the utter lack of those things necessary for those purposes that induced the War Trade Board, on the suggestion of the Govern-

ment, to see whether or not they could bring about the manufacture of those things to apply to that necessity and that emergency. That was the purpose, and my hon. friend was quite wrong in placing it upon the broader ground that we went into this bonus for the purpose of stimulating the production of flax in this country. The production of flax in this country, not stimulated much by this, although that provided a certain limited market, was stimulated by the high price that prevailed for both the seed and the fibre, and the impression that those high prices or profitable prices would prevail for a long time and that, therefore, the farmer would have a remunerative result from his labour if he put his labour to the production of flax seed and fibre. My hon. friend (Mr. Best) finds fault with my poor trade commissioners because they were not prophets.


John Best: Not with them.


George Green Foster: My hon. friend is not a prophet; I am not a prophet, and to put a man back five or four years ago in the turmoil of world conditions and ask him to tell your farmer in Ontario just what conditions would be four or five years afterwards, is giving the man no show at all unless the Lord Almighty pointed out to him what he should say. Only inspiration could do that; no human knowledge could. Therefore, I think it is not right to ask from our trade commissioners what they cannot do. The Jap, my hon. friend said, went ahead and put up a great warehouse and stocked it with flax fibre and seed and went on the market to sell it. I am afraid my hon. friend has hold of a bit of a fairy tale in that regard. Anyway, if' that were a fact, the Government could not follow that course; it dould not take wheat or flax or any other product that is made and establish warehouses and put in stock, and then either wait until somebody came to buy or induce them to buy.


John Best: I refuse to be charged with opposing this grant to the flax industry of Canada.


George Green Foster: I did not say
that.


John Best: I was referring to the hon.
member for Brome (Mr. McMaster).


Andrew Ross McMaster: I hardly think my
argument is open to that.


John Best: My complaint is that the
bounty is not half a million or a million dollars. We send our fibre from here to
the Old Country where it is manufactured, and then hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of the manufactured article is shipped back to Canada. Would it not pay the people of Canada better to give a bounty so as to have the manufacturing-process done in this country? I was not criticising the item at all. What I was criticising was this. I believe this commission could have found out what quantity there was on hand each year. Perhaps I may be wrong in that, but I think it could have been done, and if that information had been given to the farmers there might not have been quite so much flax produced, I did not say that the Japanese had a great big warehouse in Belfast. I said they had a warehouse there, where every variety of their fibres and seed samples could be shown. A small room, with one man to look after it, would do. A buyer could look over the fibre and seed and decide how many bales of fibre or how many bushels of seed he would take. The cost would be very small. If the farmers of Ontario are going to produce fibre, I think the Government should certainly establish a small warehouse there. I hope no hon. member will think I am criticising this bonus. If this bonus had not been granted, we would not be in the position we are in to-day as regards the fibre industry.
ME SUTHERLAND: I think we have wandered a little from the item before the committee, which is to provide $26,000 for a bounty on linen yarn spun in Canada from Canadian flax. Last year the item was $30,000. It is admitted that, there are immense stocks of flax fibres in the hands of the growers in this country. As a rule 1 do not favour bounties, but if ever there was a time when we were justified in passing such an item without criticism, it is now. I do not favour reducing the item to $26,000. I could not help but feel that if we had someone in this country whose foresight was as good as the backsight exhibited by the hon. member for Brome, we would have a world-beater. I did not approve of the bounty When it was first introduced, because I believed that flax growing was an industry that was peculiarly adapted to a country where cheap labour was plentiful. If you study the history of flax growing and linen production all over the world, you will find that it is most successful where cheap labour prevails, such as in Russia, India, Belgium, and Ireland. These countries have excelled in the growing of flax and the manufac-

ture of imen. During the war, however, there was such a tremendous demand for linen, and the price went up to such a figure, that many people went in for the growing of flax, for they knew that climatic conditions in this country were ideal for its production. Well, the price has fallen since. The deflation in the price of flax seed, linen and hemp is only what you find in the wool industry as well.
We had linen industries in this country before this item was placed in the Estimates. There was in the constituency that I represent a small factory engaged in the manufacture of linen. It is now a branch of the factory that is established at Guelph. They have been manufacturing Imen very successfully, and their success is in no smail measure due to the fact that this item was placed in the Estimates. Unquestionably there are immense quantities of flax in the hands of the growers for which they can find no sale to-day. I do not believe we are justified in encouraging its manufacture into linen in this country and therefore I am heartily in favour of this item in the Estimates. Instead of reducing it to $26,000, I think we would be quite justified in leaving it at $30,000.


Walter Davy Cowan: I want to disagree as strongly as I can with the attitude of my hon. friend from Brome in this matter. To my way of thinking, he is a most unprogressive gentleman. If his policy had been followed, Canada would never had got to where it is to-day. I think he would make a good old-time Conservative. This item in the Estimates has been a benefit to Canada, even if the flax market is broken today. We have proved that we can raise in Canada the very .best kind of flax for fibre purposes, and- that is worth a whole lot more than the amount it has cost us in the way of bonus. This industry is not for to-day only; we shall have a flax industry in Canada for all time to come, employing thousands of men, and bringing profit to the farmers who raise the fibre. I think this is the proper course to follow if we are going to develop this industry in Canada. We must start it by just such means as we are adopting here. I think we ought all to support the item, which will encourage the development of this industry.


Frank S. Cahill: The minister asked us to excuse him for this bad legislation on the ground that it was adopted in war time. I think the minister really should be excused because any ministry that thought winter time was the time to grow flax in

this country must have been more or less confused. The Order in Council for the encouragement of the flax industry was passed in September. That fact alone, I think, shows that the minister must have been very much confused. Had he waited for a more reasonable time, he would have found that the war was over, and he would have avoided the criticism he has received this afternoon from his own supporters for his lack of knowledge of the conditions in the flax industry. An hon. member has asked whether it was not the whole Government that was responsible for this Order in Council. I suppose the whole Government would be responsible. Certainly Parliament was not responsible. Parliament was not consulted about the matter, and had nothing whatever to do with it. The Government acted on the principle of divine right, at the time they were doing things by Order in Council instead of submitting them to Parliament. They passed this Order in Council to grow flax in the winter time instead of waiting until the House was in session, which would have been time enough, if this legislation was really necessary. I say it was a bad move on the part of the Government, and the minister deserves the criticism he has received from his supporters this afternoon.


George Green Foster: Flax grows better when it is sown on a snowbank.


Lucien Cannon: The particulars concerning this item are not to be found in volume 3 of the Auditor General's Report. I would be very grateful if the minister would indicate where they are to be found. I owe the committee an explanation with reference to the previous item. The minister and I, I am quite sure without any bad faith on the part of either of us, misled the committee when we agreed to let the first item stand. I stated that the particulars were not in volume 3, but in volume 4, and the right hon. gentleman was under the same impression. Now I wish to correct both my statement and his impression. The particulars are to be found in volume 3, and if the minister desires to return to the item I withdraw my objection. Will he tell me, if he can, where the details of this flax item are to be found in the Auditor General's Report?


George Green Foster: If I am to answer my hon. friend exactly according to his question, the details of this item will not be found until it has been worked out on the basis of production and the accounts

hare been paid and audited. That will appear in the Auditor General's Report, probably of 1922.


Mr. VIEN:: We mean last year's expenditure.


George Green Foster: Last year's expenditure, if anything, was very slight, and I am not sure that there would be anything in the Auditor General's Report this year concerning it. In the report of next year, the audited accounts will be found. I am glad to go back to item ,346, but I am sorry to have to say that my faith in my hon. friend's general veracity has received a severe shock. He told me, with such an honest look in his countenance, that the details were to be found only in "Z" that I took his word for it. After this' I shall have to query when my hon. friend makes a positive statement.


Mr. McCOIG:: Has the minister any encouragement to offer the flax growers of the country for the future? What my hon. friend from South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) stated a few moments ago is absolutely true. There are many flax growers throughout Ontario who were encouraged to take up this business by the facts placed before them by representatives or supporters of the Government. They went ahead and have produced a crop which they have yet. They have been at great expense, having paid out money which they could have spent to better advantage in some other direction; and now they have flax on hand which they are unable to dispose of. I do not say this in any unkind spirit or for the purpose of criticising the Government for having given encouragement to this or any other-industry. I believe they are justified in taking such steps as they deem fit from time to time to encourage an industry which they hope will turn out profitable to the producers. But I would ask the minister if he has any advice as to the future to offer these men who have seriously gone into this industry, made large expenditures, purchased machinery, and put up buildings to take care of their crops. Would he advise them to continue or to withdraw from the industry, and take up some other line instead?	.


George Green Foster: I certainly
would not advise them one way or the other, and it would be a pretty bold man, I think, who would take the responsibility of giving advice to people as to how they should employ their enterprise and spend their money on production in the future.
The best that could be said about it is that men must use their judgment in the light of their knowledge of the world and of business. You have to make your investment on the basis of your conviction as to what the future has in store, and a .man would assume a great responsibility if he presumed to give advice to people to go on producing flax because year after next they would obtain splendid prices. It is not possible for one to make such a prediction, and if it were, it certainly would not be possible under conditions as they exist at present. If my hon. friend thinks for a moment he will realize the truth of this. Still, we cannot stagnate. If a government is to do anything to help conditions, it must proceed on general lines, advising that we produce all we can and raise all we can; but, after all, the producer himself must be his own judge as to whether or not he will follow such advice, even though it be given with the very best intention and on the strength of information * available at the time. We all know that things change, and sometimes the change is so rapid that what appeared to be the height of wisdom at one time in the prosecution of an enterprise might be the height of unwisdom at another time, and a policy deemed advisable previously might later on turn out disastrously. I have no specific for that sort of thing, and if my hon. friend has any, I should like him to give me the formula.


Mr. EULER:: How many factories have actually been established which are entitled to the bounty?


George Green Foster: One.


William Daum Euler: Are they entitled to the bounty whether they produce yarn or not?


George Green Foster: The bounty is paid only on the production of yarn.


William Daum Euler: On what basis is it given?


George Green Foster: It is paid on the basis of so many cents per pound, based on the "lea"-their measurement-which signifies the degree of fineness or coarseness, as the case may be. The bounty is so many cents per pound of a certain fineness.


William Daum Euler: Would they receive any bounty merely as a remuneration for having put up a factory, or must they actually produce?


George Green Foster: Nothing is paid except on what is produced.


Thomas Vien: What part of the $30,000 was expended last year?


Mr. McGIBBON (Muskoka):: What is the name of the company the minister mentions?


Thomas Vien: Just a moment.


George Green Foster: The bounty
was paid from April 1, 1920, to December 31, 1920, on 110,0111 pounds of linen thread, the amount paid being $3,939.00.


William Daum Euler: What is the name of the company and where is it located?


George Green Foster: The name of the company is Dominion Linens, Ltd., of Guelph.	[DOT]


Lucien Cannon: What is the reason for the decrease this year?


George Green Foster: I explained
that the bounty is paid on actual production. At present there is one factory producing, and it is without the bounds of possibility that that factory will produce enough during the current year to warrant the payment of $30,000, and it was therefore reduced to $26,000. I do not think it is very probable that they will absorb the whole of that sum, but if it is not earned, it wil not be paid.


Mr. PEDLOW:: The member for South Oxford, in his reference to this item, in speaking of the conditions in regard to the production of flax and manufacture of linen yarns, stated that one of the reasons why Canada was not able to compete with other countries was the cheapness of labour abroad. I think that another reason is the difference in climatic conditions. Climatic conditions in the north of Ireland particularly, in Belgium, Holland and Russia, are much more favourable to the production of a finer fibre than can ever be produced in Canada under the climatic conditions that prevail here. The conditions here will prevent the Canadian producer from ever competing in the markets of the world for finer fibres. There is another reason which apparently has not been considered this afternoon in discussing this subject. That is the fact, that while in the Old Country they produce flax for the fibre only, in Canada I understand they try to produce flax at the same time for both fibre and seed. Now it is impossible to produce the finer grades of fibre and save the seed at the same time. If you produce the fibre to the stage where the seed ripens you have coarser fibre as a result,

and consequently it will not be possible for the Canadian producer to compete in markets of the world in the producing of the finer grades of this commodity.


Mr. ARMSTRONG (Lambton) :: I have no desire to prolong the debate on this item, but in view of certain definite statements which have been made by the last speaker I feel it incumbent to at least say a few words.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I have not completed my remarks. Does the hon. gentleman wish to ask a question?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: No. Let the hon. gentleman proceed with his speech.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: 
George Green Foster: If my hon.
friend will allow me, does he not think it would be more appropriate to discuss the matter of trade commissioners on the item relating to them which comes up a little later?


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: On general principles
I have no doubt the minister's view is correct, but I merely wish to refer to the matter in passing in order to emphasize a point which was alluded to by the hon. member for Dufferin. Now you have trade commissioners at Yokohama, Havana, Bar-badoes, Rio de Janeiro, Vladivostok, Shanghai, Cape Town, Buenos Aires, Rotterdam, and other places whose title terminates in the same manner as the last one I quoted.


George Green Foster: That is an
awful mean way of swearing.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Although there are trade commissioners at all these places there is not a single one in the city of Belfast.
Now I ask the minister why it is that the Government, although it obtained last year $30,000 for the encouragement of the flax industry and is now asking for a sum of $26,000, has not any representative in the city of Belfast to look after the interests of the Canadians who have this yarn to sell?


George Green Foster: In the first
place the capacity of the Dominion is limited.- There are a great many other cities in the world besides Belfast where we have no trade commissioner. As my hon. friend said we have about thirty commissioners, but even those are not sufficient to meet the needs; we have to send them where we think the best general advantages can be derived. At the present time I would imagine it to be a little bit dangerous to be in Belfast.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I think a trade commissioner would be just as safe in the city of Belfast as he would be in the Bahamas, Shanghai, or Vladivostok.


George Green Foster: But you hace
to keep indoors there.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: It seems ridiculous for
the Canadian Government to be endeavouring to promote the production of flax in Canada and to be granting bonuses for this purpose, that it has not followed the matter up by appointing a resident agent in the city of Belfast, the world centre of this particular branch of trade, to look after the interests of Canadian producers.


Mr. GLASS:: I wish to say, in reference to the observations of the hon. member who has just spoken, that he takes upon himself a very serious responsibility in criticising the support that the Government is trying to give to the establishment in Canada of an industry that has such immense possibilities. I am sorry that world conditions so far have prevented manufacturers from Ireland, and I may say even manufacturers from Belgium, who are experts in the cultivation and manufacture of flax, establishing mills here and taking advantage of this bounty to encourage the spinning industry in Canada. It must be patent to any one that it is the height of folly for us to continue to be the hewers of wood and the drawers of water for the countries of Europe-for us to produce our raw material and send it over there to be manufactured and re-sold to us in the finished state.
There seems to be a desire not only in the House but in the press to discount the ability of Canadian growers to produce flax

of high quality. A prominent Belgian who was in this country a short time ago, in the course of an interview given to a representative of the Montreal Star, stated that Canada grew as fine a quality of fibre flax as could be produced in the civilized world; but that Canadians so far had not been able to handle their flax as scientifically as growers in Belgium, Ireland and other countries. Why, Sir, the very object of establishing a department of fibre in connection with the Experimental Farm was not to show farmers how to grow flax-[DOT] that is easy enough-but how to handle it after it is grown. You may produce a crop of flax the acre value of which might not represent twenty-five dollars after it is harvested, and yet that very same flax handled under expert direction and properly retted and scutched might represent a value of from $300 to $350 an acre. It is for that very purpose that we want expert direction through our Department of Agriculture. Then, having produced a quality of flax equal to the best that can be produced in Europe, the Department of Trade and Commerce, through this bounty, can encourage the spinning of the fibre into yarns. This means spinning it into threads from which the linen is woven. As a result of that encouragement a mill was established in Guelph by Dominion Spinners, Limited, the purpose of which was to use Canadian flax fibre for the making of yarns, and then in their adjoining mill to weave the yarns into linen. The quality of their goods is attested by the fact that the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian Pacific Railway, the King Edward Hotel and other leading institutions which demand a high quality of linen for their tables are buying their supplies from Dominion Spinners, Limited; in other words, they are buying linen which has been woven in a Canadian mill from yarn spun from Canadian-grown fibre. The Brooklyn Linen Mills of Belfast, Ireland, have already been looking into the possibilities of growing fibre in this country with a view to the establishment of linen mills here. I hold, Sir, in view of the fact that we have such a tremendous potential water power in this country, and that we can grow fibre here of such excellent quality, there is no earthly reason why with proper encouragement we should not have the flax spinning and weaving industries developed here to their highest possibilities. I submit that if several spinning mills were established here-as I hope they will be- 
the $25,000 or $26,000 appropriated for bounties on the production of these yarns would be too small, and it is my cherished hope that the industry may so develop and such a large amount of yarn will be spun as to require even a large appropriation for this bounty.
This afternoon, while this discussion was proceeding, I was engaged in my room dictating a long letter of protest to the Montreal Star in answer to an article which appeared there a week ago to-night. A Mr. Ireland, of Ireland Bros., large linen manufacturers of Belfast, allowed himself to be interviewed by an ignorant reporter of the Montreal Star-ignorant on this subject; I will qualify it to that extent; absolutely ignorant of the subject about which he was seeking information. Mr. Ireland, in expressing his optimism and hope for the future of the industry, made the statement, that with the present condition of the industry throughout the world there is a total visible supply of not one-third enough fibre to operate the mills in Ireland alone for a single year. Yet notwithstanding that condition, and the impossibility of the Baltic and other flax-growing districts getting back to normal conditions within a reasonable time, the price of this commodity has been depressed to a point where it is now below the cost of production in this country. That is a very unfortunate circumstance, but it is not one to discourage us, because production costs last year were abnormal by reason of the very high rate of wages. Mr. Ireland expressed the opinion that these conditions impelled the conclusion that in the very near future there must be a large increase in the consumption of fibre, and that as soon as the retailer commenced buying linens there would be a demand on the manufacturers for their goods, and having eased themselves of their stocks, a demand would spring up very quickly from the manufacturers for the limited supply of fibre that was now available. Therefore there is every possibility that our growers will come through with a very fair profit if they will have patience. But the point in this article that I object to, and the point which I drew to the- attention of the chief of the fibre department of the Experimental Farm, is this. The interviewer asked Mr. Ireland what did people in Ireland and the rest of Europe think of Canadian flax. He said: Oh, Canadian flax does not meet with very much success. He could not say anything against

its quality, for it was good, but the flax in this country was grown mostly for linseed. Now, that was an absurd statement for him to make. It is true that in the West flax is grown for linseed, but in Ontario and Quebec we grow flax for fibre exclusively, and we have developed a quality equal to the best fibre grown in any part of the world.
I urge, Sir, that it is the duty of the Government at this critical time not to get discouraged. Our growers are not discouraged. They will grow more flax next year, but not so much as in former years; they are going to feel their way. I have expressed the opinion in this House time and again that the duty of our growers is to develop quality rather than quantity, that a hundred acres of good flax from which good fibre can be produced is better than five hundred acres of mediocre flax, the fibre from which you cannot find a market for, against the competition of Russia, Japan and other flax-growing countries. I hope the Government will stand to its guns and will follow up its good work by establishing a demonstration plant in the district where fibre is mostly grown, and will by research work encourage the adoption of better methods and better mechanical appliances. There is no reason why we should not have by this means, a flax industry developed to the limits of its possibilities, and an industry which will add enormous potential wealth to this country.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I cannot allow the statement of the hon. member for ' South Renfrew (Mr. Pedlow) to go unchallenged. In my constituency there are five flax mills which took care of a production area last year of over two thousand acres. Some of these mills have been in operation for fifty years or more and their business has been conducted in such a way that their fibre has been sent to Belfast and is considered of the very best quality in every particular. There is no question about the capability of the people of my county to raise the very best quality of flax fibre. I merely make that statement for the purpose of correcting the hon. member for South Renfrew.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I am pleased indeed to hear the correction made by the member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong). I am pleased also to see the hon. member for East Middlesex (Mr. Glass) here. During the progress of the discussion I looked around for him, and as my hon. friend has
made a specialty of this subject and has discussed it on numerous occasions on the floor of the House, to take the matter up without Ms being present seemed to me to be like trying to play Hamlet without the star performer, the Prince of Denmark. I was glad to hear from him the facts of the situation in regard to the production of fibre and to know that in Ontario at least they have not been trying to grow flax both for seed and for the production of fibre. That was attempted in the early stages of the production of flax, but without satisfactory results. I am sure that the information which has been given in regard to this matter by the member for East Middlesex will be of much interest to the general public.


Samuel Francis Glass: A certain amount of confusion constantly arises from the fact that .we can grow flax for seed as well as flax for fibre. The characteristics and the methods of cultivation in the growing of flax for fibre and the growing of flax for seed are entirely different. In producing flax for seed in the West they sow one-half bushel to the acre and as a result they grow a short, stocky straw which throws out its branches and has many seed bolls on it. The statistics show that in good soil and under favourable conditions they have reaped a crop of as high as twenty-eight bushels to the acre. Their purpose is to grow seed; the fibre is of no consideration whatever; for generations back the straw has been burned as waste, there being no use for it. In Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, and the provinces where we grow for fibre, the seed is of an entirely different character. It is seed which has been cultivated down through successive generations, having been grown originally in Riga, Russia, developed in Holland and then sent out here and grown as it is in Ireland-Dutch Child seed, we call it. This seed, instead of being sown one-half bushel to the acre, is sown a bushel and one-half to the acre, and the result is that instead of growing a short, stocky straw, they grow a long, lean straw running from thirty-six to forty-five inches high, the whole outer surface of which is covered with this fibre. The seed that is grown for oil contains twenty-five per cent more oil than the seed which is grown for fibre, therefore when you have to sell the fibre seed to the oil mill a deduction of value is made because oil cannot be produced from that seed in as great quantity as it can be produced from the regular oil seed. It is owing to the confusion with regard to our growing th it



flax in the West and growing this other type in other parts of the country that tne countries of Europe are getting mixed up as to our capacity for the production of flax. It is necessary, therefore, by propaganda and advertising to keep before the public the fact that there are two distinct varieties, one having no connection witn the other, one produced for one purpose md one for another. The statement that flax cannot be grown for fibre as well as for seed is also erroneous to some extent, because this is the only country under God's sun where we can do both. We pull the fibre flax up by the roots at a time when the seed in the boll has not been fully developed-is not ripe. But the seed is left in the straw and it goes on to maturity while the plants are in the stock, and there is no very great deterioration in its quality. The Government demands, of course, that all seeds exported to Europe for growing fibre must be certified as to quality, must show a purity of not more than one weed seed to the ounce avoirdupois, which means one weed seed in 3,390 seeds, and that they must germinate ninety per cent. My hon. friend will admit that if we grow from our fibre straw a seed that will germinate ninety per cent-and it does germinate, as has been shown by test, up to ninety-five and ninety-eight per cent

it can scarcely be said that we cannot grow fibre and, from the crop grown, obtain seed as well. We do obtain the seed, but it is not our purpose to sell it to the oil mills if we can find a market for the product in the form of fibre; because last year it had a value of $10 a bushel for fibre whereas its value for oil seed is not half that amount at the present time. There does not appear to be a market for the seed for fibre, because of the large surplus of Holland seed. The flax growers who grow for fibre have to sell their seed at twenty per cent under the price obtained for the oil seed of the West because their fibre seed does not produce the same amount of oil.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: The hon. member for East Middlesex (Mr. Glass) has just substantiated the point I made, to the effect that when you try to produce flax fibre and seed at the same time, the quality of the fibre is depreciated. You cannot produce the high est quality of flax fibre and produce a ripened seed at the same time. During the course of the discussion this afternoon the minister said that he did not desire to give advice to the farmers or to anyone else in a matter of this kind. But after the discussion which has taken place here to-day

I think he should arrive at the conclusion that is is not advice the farmers want, but information as to the proper methods of handling this product. If the Department of Trade and Commerce will supply the correct information to the men who handle this product, those men will have received from the department all they should expect, and all, I am sure, that they desire.


Mr. McKENZIE:: It has been stated during the discussion that this is an old in-i dustry, having been carried on in Canada for fifty or sixty years, and that we are>
producing here the very best quality of fibre in the world. That being the case, I do not understand why the minister has been giving a bounty for the encouragement of the industry. Bounties are usually given to encourage new industries, and before a bounty is granted the minister has to be satisfied that the industry in question is of a national character and that it has a future. What is the reason, then, for the granting of a bounty to this industry?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The
statement I made is with regard to the production of flax seed and flax fibre. I have in my riding no industry like this that would require a bounty. There is in Canada only one industry for the manufacture of fibre and that is located at Guelph.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: We have the raw material in abundance and of the veiy best quality, so that in the state to which we have developed it, we have for the last fifty or sixty years been capable of controlling the markets of the world. Why then, having such splendid material, should we not go on and develop and manufacture it further without any bounty at all? If we have to get a bounty for the manufacture of flax which is of the very excellent quality which the hon. member says it is, would not the same argument apply to every industry in the country? If a fisherman says that he is going to produce boneless codfish or that he is going to manufacture canned halibut or anything like that, where he takes a stage in advance in the production and output of fish, then he can come to the Government and say: "If you give me a bounty on every can or barrel of fish, I will produce a more advanced article." In that case, I think the department would say: "You have the article; you have your opportunities in the world, and you must hold your own or go under, just as the case may be, because we cannot follow a general policy of granting bounties to every industry in this country." I understood the minister to say that there was in Canada only one mill that

was spinning this kind of yarn, and the bounty goes only to the spun material. Therefore, if all of this $26,000 is to go to one mill, I would like to have a little further explanation from the minister. Until I looked a little more closely to this item, I thought the bounty went to the farmer; that when he produced the flax in some stage or another, he was getting the bounty. The farmer, however, does not get the bounty at all. All this afternoon we were making a lot of noise about what the farmer was going to get, when the farmer was not entitled to anything, because this item says that the flax must be spun. If there is, as I understand the matter, only one factory in Canada in which this process is carried on, I do not quite like the idea that we are going to give this $26,000 to one concern. I should like a further explanation why we had so much talk about the farmer over-producing and this bounty being given to relieve the farmer when he does not get it at all.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: Ask the hon.
member for Brome (Mr. McMaster).


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am discussing this question with the minister now, and I give it as my opinion and practice that I always stand by and get information from the department which is the responsible source. I would not even take chances on going to South Oxford, although, perhaps, it is the most prolific source of information known to the human race at present. If the farmer does not get this money, and if there is only one man who does the spinning, why should we give him, or let. him earn, $26,000 out of the depleted treasury of this country? The minister told us a little while ago that the bounty on oil goes to the farmer who has a side-show of oil producing. If the farmer who produces flax must be encouraged, why does he not get the bounty, without waiting until somebody takes the flax and spins it and then the latter gets the bounty for doing so? The spinner does not take any chances at all; he need not buy from the farmer, and he will spin and manufacture only as he sees an opportunity of selling. I cannot quite understand why he is getting the ' bounty and nothing being given to the farmer, who may have a large stock of this material piled up. On the other hand, the moment the manufacturer sees an opportunity of selling some of this manufactured stuff, after he has spun the fibre, he gets a bounty. I do not see the consistency of that course.


George Green Foster: I think my
hon. friend could not have been here when I explained why this bounty was granted in the first place. If he had, he would have known that it was a war measure and that it was not given specifically in order that more flax might be raised, but it was given specifically in order that linen thread, of which there was an absolute lack in this country, might be furnished to the fishermen and boatmen and harnessmakers and all those that required it as an absolute ingredient in their manufactures. My hon. friend might use the same argument with reference to an industry in which he is interested. Why was a bounty given on steel plates or iron? Why was the bonus not given to the men who dug the ore out of the mine? That is susceptible of an answer much the same as this. What the country and the department wanted at that time was not flax seed or fibre; it was what was never made in this country before, something of which there was an absolute lack and which was necessary for all those different purposes that I mentioned. We wanted to find a man who would spin the flax fibre and make it into thread, which would be used in those various works of necessity and out of which ultimately the textiles would be woven. My hon. friend proceeds on the wrong ground when he proceeds on the idea that this was a bounty to stimulate the production of flax seed or fibre. Indirectly, it had the effect of stimulating the production of flax. The bounty is open to any mill that will put in the machinery and manufacture the article. If my hon. friend or any friends of his would put in the amount of money necessary, erect the machinery and spin this flax from the fibre, they would have a share of this bounty; it would not be given to one. But this is the only mill which has equipped itself and is, consequently, the only spinner of flax thread in the Dominion. -


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The minister has
drawn an analogy between the granting of a bounty to the spinner of flax fibre and the granting of a bounty to the producer of steel. When he talks about a bounty to the producer of steel and pig iron, we are dealing with a concrete case and we know exactly the circumstances. There was no distinction of ownership in that case; the same man who made the pig iron owned the raw material.


George Green Foster: Not necessarily.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There was only the
one specific case in Canada, or two at the outside.


George Green Foster: My hon. friend is wrong. The bounty was given on pig iron with which was mixed a certain and quite a large proportion of foreign iron ore. It does not necessarily follow that the man who made the pig iron owned the iron mines.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There was never anything else. There were only two companies in Canada that ever got much advantage [DOT]-The Dominion Coal Company, and the Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company, and they both owned their iron ore. The bounty was never given to anybody simply because he had ore and was not manufacturing it. I do not wish to detain the minister with his Estimates for one moment. I only wish to tell him that we are seem to be following a different practice than has been usual when considering Estimates. A minister used to get through his Estimates without very much trouble from his own side of the House, but it is different to-day, and I would suggest to the minister that he should caucus his Estimates so that when he brings them down here he will only have to battle with those who are not in his confidence. Practically the whole afternoon has been taken up with sniping from behind the minister. He has had very little trouble indeed from this side of the House.


William Stevens Fielding: Was this Order in
Council passed under the War Measures' Act?


George Green Foster: Yes.


Mr. ROBB:: The minister has just
admitted that the Order in Council was passed under the War Measures' Act. I gathered from a previous statement he made that we had made a contract for three years, and that we could not, if we were to keep our faith as a nation, rescind the contract until the end of that time. I am not sure that I am quoting him correctly. Well, in answer to a question from the hon. member from North Cape Breton and Victoria the minister has just made the statement that so far only one mill in Canada has availed itself of the advantages of this contract. I suppose the minister is providing in his Estimates this year for the subsidy which that mill will earn?


George Green Foster: Or any other
that may qualify for it.


James Alexander Robb: I notice that the item is
for a subsidy to the manufacturers of flax,

including expenses of supervision. I suppose $5,000 would cover the expenses of supervision fairly well. If that be true, the minister will be subsidizing this particular mill, providing he appropriates the $26,000, to the extent of seven per cent upon $300,000. That will equip a pretty good mill. The shareholders in this particular mill one therefore given a preferred dividend of 7 per cent upon $300,000; I do not think that is an unfair statement.


George Green Foster: My hon.
friend's statement is not right in this respect. If this mill with its equipment can make a sufficient quantity of linen thread to make it necessary for us to pay out $20,000 as a bounty upon the number of pounds that it makes, it would get the $20,000, and my hon. friend would be right in his reasoning, but at its present rate of production it would not get that amount. If another mill equipped itself and produced thread it would also share proportionately in the bounty, which cannot exceed $25,000.


James Alexander Robb: I thought it was $26,000.


George Green Foster: The contract
is $25,000, and if ten mills were producing, and producing at an equal rate, each mill would get only one-tenth of $25,000.


Arthur Meighen: The vote is for $26,000.


George Green Foster: That includes
the expenses of supervision.


James Alexander Robb: I allowed $5,000 for that,
leaving a bonus of $21,000. The fact remains that the minister is providing for a preferred dividend of 7 per cent on an investment of over $300,000 for three years. Now, either the minister has in mind that this particular company will get the whole subsidy, or that some other company will avail itself of a part of it; otherwise, it would not be necessary to vote this full amount. I think it would be well for the minister to take the committee completely into his confidence in view of the opposition that has developed from his own supporters. The opposition to this item, I gather, is largely upon the ground that this particular mill subsidized by Canada, with its dividends guaranteed, is not taking care of the crops which the farmers of that district have been encouraged to grow in anticipation that they would be able to sell them to this mill. The mill will not take the flax, and consequently the farmers are the losers because they could have utilized the land for growing cereals or for dairying or some other purpose.

We have heard a good deal to-day about developing the flax industry in this country, but if my knowledge of the trade is at all correct, Russia grows two-thirds of the flax production of the world, and exports one-half of its product to Great Britain, Germany, Prance and Belgium. I am not sure that it is a wise policy to subsidize an industry that comes into competition with the cheap labour of Russia. We might invest our money in something that would be more suitable to this country, and that would give us a better return on the investment.
There is another feature. On the one hand, hon. gentlemen who represent constituencies where fibre is produced for this mill complain that it is not buying the fibre. I should like to know how this mill is dealing with the people of Canada in selling its manufactured product. Is their selling price up to the very limit they can obtain under the tariff laws of this country, or is there any advantage to the Canadian people in purchasing linen from this particular company?


George Green Foster: My hon.
friend, I think, was scarcely fair in trying to make it appear that a very large amount of opposition had developed to this particular vote on this side of the House.


James Alexander Robb: That is how it looked to
us over here.


George Green Foster: But the glasses probably were arranged so that it might look that way. Neither was my hon. friend quite fair, I think, in stating that all the incentives to the raising of flax in Ontario and other parts of the Dominion were centered entirely on the fact that here was one mill that was manufacturing a small proportion of linen thread. That was not what caused the development and expansion of the flax fibre and seed industry. As I stated before, and as my hon. friend will readily admit, it was the general conditions of supply and demand throughout the world which made the price for flax fibre and flax seed very high and remunerative, and it was that high price which stimulated the growth of flax fibre and seed. The market has suddenly receded, as it has in a thousand other instances, and consequently there are stocks on hand that cannot realize the old price. There may be stocks on hand which cannot realize a remunerative price. This is but a small item in the incentive towards increased development in the production of flax. My hon. friend wants to know how
they are selling, and so on. Well, as I mentioned a while ago to the committee, only about 110,000 pounds has been manufactured up to the end of 1920, and that would go a very small way in the manufacture of textiles. I imagine they are selling at as good a price as they can obtain.


James Alexander Robb: Is the number of pounds mentioned by the minister the full capacity of the mill?


George Green Foster: That was only what was spun by the mill in a limited time; it does not take in the whole year, neither was it the full acapacity. Your capacity increases according as you bring in your units. What the full capacity is I do not know.


Samuel Francis Glass: I hope the hon. member for Huntingdon (Mr. Robb) does not propound the doctrine that because Russia in the past has produced two-thirds of the total flax fibre production in the world, and, owing to cheap labour, was able to produce it at a low cost, therefore we must lie down or get out of the way and let that country continue this production. We produce a quality of fibre in this country that is superior to the great bulk of the fibre produced in Russia. Hon. gentlemen do not seem to understand the conditions that were responsible for this bounty. Primarily, I suppose, it was due to war conditions, because we had mills that could weave linen cloths for aeroplanes, but we could not get the yarns. We had raw fibre and were sending it across the seas to help the Mother Country, but we could not get a pound of yarn here, and the only mill we had was shut down because it could not obtain supplies of yarn to carry on manufacturing. Cotton looms were installed and, I believe, cotton was spun. Now, the production of fibre by the farmers a,nd the small co-operative mills of this country had been possible only by exporting the material. During the war it was felt that if we could spin the fibre here and produce aeroplane cloths, we should be doing the Empire a great service. But, there was the fact that we were allowing our fibre to go out of this country to be spun into yarns in Ireland, Belgium, France, and elsewhere, where there are spinning mills. My hon. friend from Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie), said he understood that we have been manufacturing these yarns in this country for a period of sixty years. He is entirely wrong in that impression. Except through

the hand loom in the home of the habitant, we have never before spun yarns in this country. This bounty was given to encourage the establishment of an industry which would enable us to use our materials right through the various stages of production to the finished article, linen. No one would imagine that a mill would begin operations on the assurance of a bounty for one year. The mills asked for a bounty of $25,000. That was the maximum that could be given in one year, and it was to be given for three years. It was divided into three classes, a bounty of three cents, six cents, and nine cents per pound, according to the quality of the yarns spun. The three cents per pound bounty was given on all yarns between ten lea and twenty lea, which is the coarser quality. The yarns of a finer fibre, between twenty and forty lea, were granted six cents a pound, and all above forty lea were given nine cents. The object of the higher bounty was to encourage the spinning of a finer and better quality of yarns in this country. That, of course, is a matter of great importance to the grower as well as to the spinner, because if we are to spin yarns of sixty lea and upwards, it is necessary for the farmers to produce the higher quality of flax.


James Alexander Robb: Were these various qualities of yarn spun in the same mill?


Samuel Francis Glass: Yes. Now, the spinning of yarn of good quality is not a question that depends on any method of handling in the mill; it is a matter of having a quality of fibre that will produce fine yarn.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Were these various
very fine qualities required for war purposes?	.


Samuel Francis Glass: I am informed that yarn that would spin sixty lea was of ample fineness for the purposes of manufacturing aeroplane cloth, which was the matter * l principal importance at that time. It has been stated by a prominent linen manufacturer that ninety per cent of the production of all linens in the world are manufactured from yarns that are spun under one hundred lea of fineness, We have already produced yarns in this country that have spun up to one hundred lea, which is an exceptionally fine quality. We need not worry ourselves if we are unable to produce a quality fine enough to compete with the finer yarns spun from Belgium flax retted in the Courtrai district. If we can produce a quality sufficiently high to be included in the ninety per cent of the
	_
total world production, we are producing an article which, I think, should command sufficient sympathy from this House to ensure its development. My hon. friend from Cape Breton said he thought we were helping the farmers. Well, so we are. If we can develop the spinning of a finer degree of yarn by developing our own spinning facilities, naturally it follow's that the onus is on the grower to produce a finer fibre that will give us the better quality of yarn. An acre of flax will produce three hundred pounds of fibre, and that fibre may be worth anywhere from fifteen cents per pound to seventy-five cents per pound, according to quality. Whatever be the quality of the fibre, it has taken the same amount of labour and the same area of land. But it is a matter of great importance to the producer whether he gets fifteen cents a pound or seventy-five cents for the product. It is a total difference of $1,200 per ton in price, or as will be seen, $180 an acre. I think that we should urge our people to produce, not so much with a view to quantity a~s for the purpose of securing as good a quality as can possibly be had, because it is in the hope that we may produce an article of the highest quality that we shall ultimately displace Russian flax from the American, and even from the Irish, markets. Russia will not bother us in the production of flax for a few years to come, and unless she improves her methods she will not be a serious competitor in the higher grades. But if our ambition stops at the coarser grades, then Russia will be a serious competitor against us in the years ahead. In order to encourage this industry a bounty of $25,000 a year was granted by Order in Council as a maximum to be continued for a period of three years.
Now people might naturally say, in fact the statement was made at the time, "There may be half a dozen mills start up, and in that case we will not get this bounty on our production. We will only get the bounty in the ratio that our production bears to the entire production; and it may be that if five or six mills were producing enough to absorb $100,000 on the basis of the bounty given, that each mill would only get twenty-five per cent of that bounty to which it might be entitled if there was not competition." Nevertheless we hoped the assistance given would attract the Irish mills to this country, and that we would ultimately develop a large and extensive spinning industry in this country, because


it follows as surely as that the night follows the day that to develop the spinning industry means the development of the growing industry, and that is where the advantage to the farmer comes in. I submit that in fairness to the manufacturer who started the mill in question, it , is our duty to keep faith with him. I hope that if we keep faith with him we will find before the expiration of the term for which this bounty is granted, other large firms in Ireland desirous of establishing mills in this country.


Thomas Vien: Would there be an ample market for the yarn spun in Canada?


Samuel Francis Glass: There is a market in the world for more than Canada could possibly produce if she had twenty mills. The spinning capacity of the world to-day is not sufficient to supply the world's needs for linen at the present time.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend said something about the mills wanting a! guarantee of $25,000 before they would enter, into this undertaking. Does he mean that they wanted such a guarantee from the Government of Canada, or from the city of Guelph?


Samuel Francis Glass: I do not think I made myself clear to my hon. friend; I certainly did not mean to create such an impression. What I said was that they were presuming at the time that half a dozen mills, maybe a dozen, might take advantage of the encouragement as proposed for the establishment of spinning mills in this country. Now the maximum amount of the bounty was $25,000. If twelve mills of equal capacity started operations and each mill earned according to the rate granted, a bounty of $25,000, it would instead of getting the full bounty, receive only a ratio as one of twelve.


Thomas Vien: If my hon. friend is right in saying that there is an ample market at the present time for yarns spun in Canada, and that even if several other mills were established they could not produce all the yarns that the world's market could absorb, I fail to see the necessity of a subsidy to bonus such an industry. The idea of such a subsidy is to protect an industry during its earlier years against competition; but if my hon. friend's statement is correct, and I take it that he is an authority on the subject, I fail to see why this industry requires assistance. It should not need aid if there is an ample demand
for its product in the markets of the world. I would like to have some explanation from my hon. friend as to his reasons for supporting the granting of a subsidy when, according to his own statement
6 p.m. of a moment ago, no subsidy is necessary for the establishment of the industry.


Samuel Francis Glass: My hon. friend propounds a question in regard to a matter which seems to me very clear. The bonus would be applicable in this case just the same as it is in the case of the iron and steel industries, or any other industry which it is desired to encourage.


Thomas Vien: My hon. friend will permit
me to point out that the iron and steel industries in Canada had to fight their way, in the matter of marketing their products, in the face of very strong competition. The point as to which I would like my hon. friend to give some enlightenment is that in this case, according to his own statement, there is no competition- there is a demand for the entire production not only of the existing mills but of other mills that might be established. The hon. member also said that we need not fear competition from Russia, which used to produce most of the flax consumed, for years to come. The case of the steel bounties is not at all parallel to the present case:	In the one there is competition, and
in the other there is not at present, according to my hon. friend, a sufficient supply to meet the world's demand.


Georges Henri Boivin: Is there any possibility-, by sitting a few minutes longer, of putting this item through before the committee takes recess?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I think there is every
possibility of putting the item through if the Minister of Trade and Commerce would promise to control his followers.


Thomas Vien: If my hon. friend will
pardon me. I do not wish to unduly prolong the debate, but a point has arisen upon which I would like some enlightenment before I am ready to support this vote. The point is the one I have endeavoured to explain. We are asked to vote a subsidy for the encouragement of this industry and the hon. member (Mr. Glass) has just informed the committee that there was such a demand for yarn that even if several spinning mills were established it could not be supplied. If that is true, it seems to me no reason exists why we should assist this industry

by voting it a subsidy. The reason for the granting of a subsidy is to protect an industry against competitors in the markets of the world. In the case of the present industry not only is there no competition but there is an insufficient supply of the material-that is accepting the statement of my hon. friend. Under the circumstances the matter wilil stand further investigation, and I therefore respectfully beg to differ from the hon. member for North Cape Breton and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) who said that the question could be disposed of in a very few minutes.
At Six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at Eight o'clock.


Georges Henri Boivin: When the committee rose at six o'clock we were considering the Estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce. Item 346 had been allowed to stand. We had considered item 347, which has not yet been adopted. Shall the item carry?


Thomas Vien: Mr. Chairman, when the
committee rose the question was on the advisability of continuing the bounty to the flax industry in view of the fact that there is not a sufficient supply of fibre to satisfy the excessive demand. Therefore I do not see why a subsidy is necessary to encourage the development of the industry. The principle underlying a subsidy is that of protection to the particular industry during its infant years so that it may survive undue competition of stronger rivals. I would be very much interested to hear the hon. member (Mr. Glass) who is known as an expert on this subject, give the committee his reasons for supporting the grant of such a subsidy.


Samuel Francis Glass: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman draws the deduction from my statement that because there is an unlimited demand for the visible supply of fibre there is no reason why encouragement should be given to the manufacture of the raw material in this country. In theory his deduction may seem to him to have some force. It was pointed out this afternoon that although this industry had been in existence in this country for a period of fifty or sixty years-and I may tell my hon. friend that he would not have gone astray if he had said "that it had been in existence for a period of over two hundred and fifty years-yet we had not made that substantial progress in it that might reasonably

have been expected. The total visible supply of flax fibre to-day is not sufficient to keep the British spinning mills alone em>
ployed for one year. But that visible supply will also be sought by the spinning mills in Belgium, Austria, France, Germany and other parts of the world. Therefore it is a fairly reasonable statement to make that the present supply is not at all sufficient to meet the demands of the world. Now, my hon. friend asks the question: If there is an unlimited demand for flax fibre, why is there any need of protection? I answer him by saying that there is a demand, but there is a suspension of that demand for the time being by reason of what is generally conceded to be a consumers' "strike." The impression prevailed that all commodities had reached such a high cost that there must inevitably come a reaction, and the consumers of linen came to the same conclusion and they quit buying. The result was that the wholesaler ceased buying his supplies from the mills, that reacted on the mills and they had to suspend operations, and at present they are operating on very short time and are loaded up with their manufactured product. If my hon. friend's question applies to the immediate present, I would say that the demand having been temporarily suspended, and the supply in the mills being ample under those circumstances, there is a supply for which there is no call at present.


Thomas Vien: Since when?


Samuel Francis Glass: Practically since last September. It has been intermittently stagnant from that time on. The consumers' "strike" still continues and therefore the manufactured goods are not moving. But so soon as the usual channels of trade become active again the demands of consumers will react on the wholesalers, and they in turn will be eager to relieve the manufacturers of their present stocks.


Thomas Vien: Although this temporary
condition of slackness of demand has existed only since last September, I would point out to my hon. friend that the subsidy was introduced under the provisions of the War Measures' Act in 1919, if I remember rightly.


Samuel Francis Glass: The conditions arising
out of the war only added force to the arguments in favour of a subsidy to encourage the development of the flax industry in this country.


Thomas Vien: Was there not at that time such a tremendous demand that although

all our mills worked day and night they could not satisfy the war-time requirements ?


Samuel Francis Glass: No, my hon. friend is
entirely wrong. There was not such a demand as the mills could not satisfy, but there was such a dearth of raw material that they could not produce the yarns with which to manufacture cloth.


Thomas Vien: Did I not understand the
hon. gentleman to say that there was such a demand for fibre in England that our Canadian weaving mills could not get their supply, and that the demand for their products was out of all proportion to their means of supplying it?


Samuel Francis Glass: I am sorry I cannot make
myself clear to my hon. friend. I do say that there was a demand for the cloths, the resultant product of the weaving mills, which could not be supplied at that time because the available supply of flax fibre, which is the raw material of the spinning mills, could not be produced, and the only weaving mill in Canada at that time was the Dominion Linens, Limited, in Guelph, they having established a mill there at a cost of $750,000. They had previously been importing their yarns, the manufactured article from the fibre, and from those yarns weaving their cloths. Due to the war conditions then prevailing and the necessity for aeroplane cloths, Great Britain, Germany and all the belligerent countries forbade the exportation of the fibre and yarns and of any other flax products. What was the condition in Canada? We had a mill but that mill was stagnant because we could not manufacture our fibre into yarn to keep the spinning mills going.


Mr VIEN:: Because you could not get the yarn from European mills?


Samuel Francis Glass: Precisely.


Thomas Vien: Then there was such a demand for the yarns that the Canadian weaving mills could not get their supply to keep them going. Therefore my argument is that if there was such a demand for yarns, there is no need of protection to the spinning mills.


Samuel Francis Glass: My hon. friend draws a
very unreasonable conclusion. Does he think for one minute that by reason of the demand for fishing nets, aeroplane cloths, harness threads, shoe threads and the other products of flax fibre it was reasonable under the pressure existing at that time to start their manufacture here, although the war might be
over in six months or a year, when the large manufacturers in England, with their experience and their organization spread over centuries, with all the facilities and advantages which were at their command, might be in a position to crush any small mill which was started in Ontario? Surely it is unreasonable for my hon. friend to take that position.


Thomas Vien: Not at all. I will ask for further information from my expert friend. Under normal conditions before the war, was there an excess of supply in yarns, or was there an excess in demand?


Samuel Francis Glass: Before the war there was an adequate supply of yarns and an adequate supply of fibre,/ eighty per cent of which was produced by Russia. When the war started the York Street Spinning Mills of Belfast saw the possibility of great diminution of the supply in Russia, so they sent an expert out to look over the field in Canada and see whether they could produce here the raw material for their linen mills. The man whom they sent out was a Mr. Lockhart, who is still chief of their organization. He came to the little village of Park Hill in the county of Middlesex and from that centre he established mill after mill in adjoining districts, and as a result of the success of their effort the acreage was increased year after year until it had run up to between three and four thousand acres. This Belfast mill had not known that they could use any flax fibre produced in Canada. Not a dollar's worth of flax fibre had ever been exported from Canada to European countries. Our sole market had been in the United States, in the thread mills of Massachusetts and New Jersey, and the result was that our growers were compelled to take the price fixed by the mills in Andover, Massachusetts and the other mills in New Jersey. They could scarcely get a price that would yield a profit sufficient to encourage any expansion of the industry. Now, Russia got out of the market completely and the demand continued to increase throughout all the years of the war, chiefly through the demand for aeroplane cloths. As a matter of fact, the manufacture of flax into linen for table-cloths and things of that kind was prohibited in Great Britain and Germany; the governments took control of the whole supply of linen and directed its manufacture to the production of aeroplane cloths. The hon. gentleman suggested this afternoon that

Russia was able to grow eighty per cent, or four-fifths of the world's supply of fibre, and he asked what was the use of Canada producing fibre in the face of that fact. Well, would he suggest that because Russia, Argentina or other countries ean produce wheat at a lower cost than we can, our farmers should discontinue the growing of wheat? I hope that this country will build up a great home market in which they can use all their wheat and all the fibre and linen that we produce. The point I want to make is that we have grown fibre in this country for two hundred and fifty years, but we are very little advanced in our methods of production-and so it is throughout the world-over the methods that were employed six thousand years ago. Canada has done something in the development of mechanical appliances for handling these crops, but in my opinion she has not measured up to her responsibility in the matter of research work with a view to improving the methods of retting this fibre. We have manufactured throughout all these years, but we have never been able to establish an industry here by which we could spin our yarns.


Thomas Vien: Why?


Samuel Francis Glass: Because the production of fibre was small on account of the expensive methods of handling, on account of the cost of labour as against the low cost of labour in Russia.


Thomas Vien: Could we not import the fibre as Ireland did?


Samuel Francis Glass: Yes, we could import the fibre, but we could not get labour with which to operate our spinning-mills at four times the price they pay in Ireland.


Thomas Vien: I speak of the conditions prior to the war.


Samuel Francis Glass: I, too, am speaking of conditions prior to the war. We have open markets in the world for raw fibre just as Ireland has. But my hon. friend knows or should know that the conditions of labour prevailing in Ireland were such as to involve a standard of living that would not be desirable for the workingmen of this country, and I hope that the standard of living of the workingman in this country will never come down to the point which it reached in Ireland. Before the establishment of this spinning mill we did not know the quality of the fibre we had been able to grow. We accepted the price for 
our fibre fixed by the spinning mills in the United States. The lower grades of tow- the waste or by-product of the manufacture-were suitable for a good deal of the material which they manufactured, and not having any market for our fibre in our own country we exported our superior material at a price based on that of the cheaper tows which are produced to-day. When we established the spinning mill-


Thomas Vien: When was that?


Samuel Francis Glass: A year ago. When we established the spinning mill we commenced to show by actual demonstration what we could do in this direction. Hon. gentlemen may theorize all they like about Canada not being able to grow flax, but when we delivered the goods, when we produced an article from our own raw material, we demonstrated that we could grow a fibre that would spin yarns up to sixty lea. There has been some difficulty in getting the machinery necessary to the development of the business up to the standard we aim at. This mill which has been in operation for a year has been able to get a certain amount of machinery with which to carry on the development of the coarser grades of fibre, but machinery for the spinning of the finer yarns is under order and when it is installed we shall be producing a quality of fibre away above that which we are producing now. If for no other purpose than to encourage the production of a higher and better quality of fibre I submit that the encouragement which has been given to the spinning industry has been fully justified. Hon. gentlemen have expressed the view that if the bounty re-acts beneficially upon the farmer, they are enabled to view it from a more favourable standpoint. That may be all right so far as it goes, but my argument is that the development of the spinning industry has shown the farmers and the growers what they did not know before: that they are able to produce a fibre that can compete with the best standards of fibre in Europe; that they do not have to take twelve and one-half cents a pound for it; that in the future, instead of receiving $250 a ton, they may reasonably expect a permanent market at a price of from $750 to $1,000 a ton.


Thomas Vien: I do not think the hon. gentleman has answered my question at all. He has repeated the theories that we heard from him this afternoon and that we had heard with great interest at various times prior to that. The question I put to him is this: If there was a demand under normal conditions, setting aside abnormal con-

ditions created by the war, and if the supply was sufficient for the demand for spun yarn, then there is no field for such an industry in Canada, and it would be better if we diverted our energies and capital to more profitable propositions. If, on the other hand, there is not a sufficient supply, then the demand is incentive enough to our manufacturers to start such an industry, and thereby the necessity for such a subsidy disappears- That is the point I tried to make clear to the committee this afternoon. I wanted to be enlightened but I am sorry that I have received very little enlightenment on the subject so far. There are only two alternatives-whether the demand exceeds the supply or the supply exceeds the demand. If the demand exceeds the supply, there is no necessity for a subsidy to protect such an industry. If the supply exceeds the demand, there is no field for such activity, and the Government .would have been better advised to encourage industries with greater prospects of success.


George Green Foster: As my hon.
friend (Mr. Vien) has, after this arduous series of debating conflicts with my hon. friend on this side, come to the conclusion that he has not received any enlightenment and does not see any prospects of receiving any, probably it would be better for us now to leave the general question with which this is incidentally connected and go back to the appropriation itself.


Thomas Vien: Is the minister not of opinion that the principle at stake, underlying the appropriation, is of some importance?


George Green Foster: If my hon.
friend will allow me to present, for a moment or two out of his precious time, my point of view, I shall be very glad, and then he can go on again. This appropriation is for a special purpose. I explained it early in the afternoon. During war time and at a period when it was impossible to get any linen thread in this country from outside sources, and when there was a great demand for these linen yarns for war and for peace purposes here, under the War Measures Act the Government, on the recommendation of the War Commission, proposed, for the purpose of getting these yarns spun in Canada and getting a material which we could get in no other way, that we would give a bounty if anyone be found to put in the equipment necessary for spinning yarns, none of which equipment we had had in Canada before. We had not spun an ounce of linen yarn in Canada previously to that. As a result
of inquiries and after a good deal of negotiation, we proposed a plan of giving for three years a subsidy, of the limited amount of $25,000 a year, not to exceed in the three years $75,000, and to give that on a poundage basis to men who would put in the equipment and spin the yarn, such subsidy not to be paid during the continuance of the war, but to commence after the determination of peace and to be continued for three years thereafter. The reason for that was that, during the war period, owing to the scarcity, the price would be sufficiently high to be an inducement to remunerate them somewhat at least for the extra equipment put in, but their hard time would come after peace had been declared and after prices had taken the fall which they inevitably would take. Under the War Measures Act the Government made a contract with those people. We have paid them upon the first year of their contract; we are to pay them on two years more of their contract, and I am simply asking for this appropriation to enable us to do what our part of the contract asks to be done in an obligation out of which no reasonable person would, I believe, think we ought to attempt to crawl for any reason whatever. We are not discussing any broad principle of subsidies to flax interests or to the making of yarn. This is a war child, born of war necessity, a contract entered into by the Government under the War Measures Act, and we ask the committee to give us this appropriation to carry out our part of the contract.


Thomas Vien: Does the minister consider that this will be a permanent industry in Canada or that there is an opening for such an industry?


George Green Foster: If we take the vote on the ground on which I have stated it, it would make no difference what I thought in that regard. This is a contract we propose to fulfil. We ask the committee to give us this appropriation in order to fulfil the contract. My hon. friend is a business man; he knows what contracts are, and I do not think in his heart he has any objection to the Government fulfilling a contract into which it has solemnly entered. All these extraneous things in the discussion are very important, but we are not discussing to-day a permanent policy of subsidizing either the spinning or the production.


Thomas Vien: But there is this much to
be said:	The Government is now before
the committee and subject to the judg-

ment of the committee as to the wisdom of the policy adopted at that time and as to the wisdom of the conract entered into by the Government with that company. The minister has explained to the committee that this was a war measure adopted for war purposes. Other industries were started during the war for no less important objects. For instance, new industries had to he started for the manufacture of shells, cartridges and a number of other articles of great necessity during the war. The prices given for such articles were the incentive, and the Government never thought of resorting to a subsidy or bonus to those industries no matter what amount of machinery they had to purchase or what amount of experience they had to acquire. The Government simply placed contracts with those firms to deliver certain quantities of materials, and they never introduced the idea of protection by way of a bonus to these industries for war purposes. In the present instance the Government has adopted a different course. Owing to the necessity of getting the yarn, not only did the Government offer the inducement of the general conditions prevailing, but they went a step further and offered a subsidy amounting to $25,000 a year if a manufacturer could produce sufficient to earn this subsidy. This was a departure from the general policy which prevailed at that time. The minister, to explain his position, brushes aside the principle at stake and says: "Surely the committee will not refuse the Government the fulfilment of their contract. The Government have entered into a contract and this committee cannot put that contract aside." I am in favour of the flax industry in Canada and of developing the establishment of mills to spin yarns from fibre produced in Canada, but before we decide to protect such a new industry I put to myself and to my right hon. friend the question: Is there a field of operation before it which holds out prospects of success in the future? My right hon. friend evades that question. He brushes it aside altogether, and says it is not the question involved, that the only question involved 'is the fulfilment of a contract. In my humble opinion, the Government were wrong in making a contract with such a company, because the demand for this material at that time, as the minister himself has admitted, was just as great as for the material turned out by any other industry started during the war period. So I say from the point of view of [Mr. Yien.1
the contract the Government was wrong in entering into it. Before we determine to protect a new industry by way of this subsidy to be paid during three consecutive years, I put to myself and to my right hon. friend the question:	Is it an industry
which has any chance of success in the future? I have failed to draw either from my right hon. friend or from the previous speaker any answer to that question, and to my mind that is the whole principle which underlies this vote; it is not the question of the contract, but the question whether we should protect such an industry. If there is a chance of this industry surviving we might consider this vote, but we have not been enlightened on that point so far.


James Alexander Robb: What amount was paid to this corporation last year? I notice the vote this year is $4,000 less than last year.


George Green Foster: 


Thomas Vien: Is that for the calendar
year? I understood the right hon. gentleman to say it was up to December 31.


George Green Foster: Yes, from the time production commenced.


Thomas Vien: Were any further amounts paid after December 31, last.


George Green Foster: No.


Thomas Vien: So the figure given by my
right hon. friend covers the fiscal year as well?


George Green Foster: Accounts may
have come in which have not yet been paid, but they will be accounts for work done during the remaining months of the fiscal year.


Thomas Vien: Would my right hon. friend tell us why the Auditor General's report is absolutely silent as to the expenditure during last year? As it is an expenditure during the period covered by the Auditor General's report, it seems to me the matter should have been reported on by the Auditor General.


George Green Foster: The Auditor
General's report that my hon. friend has before him deals with the fiscal year ending March 31st, 1920. This production was after the expiration of that fiscal year.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I understood the minister to say that $3,939.77 was paid in bonus to this industry last year. How much

was paid for supervision, or for nursing this war baby?


George Green Foster: The large
amount of $197.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: That was all that was
paid out of the appropriation of last year?


George Green Foster: Up to that
time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Bounties on Crude Petroleum, administration of the Act, $3,000.
Georges Henri Boivin: This item has already been considered to a certain extent. The hon. member who objected to its passing this afternoon is now willing that it be re-considered.


Lucien Cannon: I find, at page Z-23, Volume III, of the Auditor General's report, that the monies expended in the period covered by the report were paid, not to individual farmers, as was intimated by my right hon. friend this afternoon, but that all the monies have been paid to companies, some of which have received very large amounts. I would like the minister to tell exactly what these companies are, and where they are operating.


George Green Foster: I am afraid
I cannot give my hon. friend the information with reference to all these companies or individuals who have been recipients of the bounty. The law states to whom the bounty shall be paid. Our supervisor makes certain that the oil which has been raised has been correctly represented, and thereafter the bounty is paid at the rate of one-and-a-half cents, I think it is, per gallon. As to the composition of these companies or the associations of the farmers amongst themselves I have no know, ledge at all, and no information which I can give to my hon. friend.	_


Lucien Cannon: I think the minister
might supply the committee with more information than apparently he is willing to give. This afternoon I raised the question whether this Government was paying this bounty to the large oil companies, such as the Imperial Oil Company, which is a subsidiary of the Standard Oil Company. I notice by the auditor General's report that the moneys which have been paid by the Government have been paid to corporations, not to individuals. If the right hon. gentleman will look at the list on page Z-23, volume III, of the Auditor General's report he will see that these corporations are apparently important concerns. I am
under the impression-I may be wrong- that they are subsidiary companies of the Imperial Oil Company. If they are, I think the principle is altogether wrong that this Government should give bounties or premiums to such corporations. Oil in this country is sold at very high prices, and I do not see why the Government should add to the already exorbitant profits made by these corporations by paying them bounties from the public treasury.


William Antrobus Griesbach: I am not so much
interested-


Lucien Cannon: Perhaps the hon. member would permit the minister to answer my question first.


William Antrobus Griesbach: What I am about to say has to do with the point raised by the hon. member, and after I have finished the minister will be able to answer both questions at the same time. The point I want to raise is this: It would appear that under the law a bonus is paid for the production of oil. I do (not know whether it is payable only to concerns operating in certain provinces, or whether it applies throughout Canada. But I do know that the Government proposes to exact a royality on oil produced, and I should like to know how it is that we grant a bonus on the pi'oduc-tion of oil and at the same time impose a royality on that oil. That is what I cannot understand.


George Green Foster: I think I explained this afternoon the origin of the bounty on oil. In 1904 the Government of that day removed the duty from crude oil imported into Canada. The production of oil in this country was at that time almost exclusively confined to some districts in the province of Ontario. Oil was produced in small quantities by a large number of people from individual wells, and some companies also produced on a small scale; and the bounty given at that time was a compensation to these people by reason of the introduction of free crude oil from the United States. That legislation was amended on two or three occasions so as to provide that the individual producers of oil, whether farmers or companies, should have the bounty paid directly to themselves. There are farmers who have oil and produce it simply in the line of their individual operations. They get their bounty on the amount they produce. There are associations of farmers in a small way that work a number of wells amongst themselves, and there are also companies, small and

large. The subsidy is paid to producers, whoever they are, whether individual farmers, associations of farmers, or companies. As to the quality of the oil, I suppose it was fixed at a standard corresponding to that of the oil allowed in free of duty. The law provided a specific gravity test of .8235. Those hon. members who are familiar with this subject will understand this matter better than I do; I do not know much about it myself. This provision first appeared in the Act of 1908, and has been in it since. This specific gravity test, I have no doubt, was applied to ensure that the oil on which the bounty was paid should about equal in quality the oil obtained from the United States and the condition is therefore precedent to the payment of the bounty, that it must he oil of a specific gravity of .8235. No oil gets the bounty if it does not fulfil that test. Very little of the oil that is produced in the West conforms to that test, and therefore hut a small portion of the bounty is paid on western production. Some is paid on oil raised in the vicinity of Edmonton. From the shales in the province of New Brunswick some oil is produced and that has to fulfil the test. The bounty is granted to all oils, wherever produced, that fulfil the requirements. The other question of my hon. friend, as to why oils on which a bounty is paid are made to contribute to the revenue, is explained in this way. Usually oil concerns that are started give promise of large results, and it is considered right that some royalty at least should be paid to the Government to pay for all the preliminary work which is necessary and for proper regulation and supervision.


Andrew Ross McMaster: May I suggest to the minister that the' wells of knowledge do not flow far enough in this direction? We are not able to follow him; we cannot hear.


George Green Foster: I thought they were filled to overflowing. However, I will turn round and face my hon. friends. Now, to reply to my hon. friend on the other side who is thirsting for information, I find that there are companies and individuals mentioned in the memorandunr before me, and broadly speaking, I think there are more individuals or associations of individuals, than, companies, to whom the payment is made. Various names of companies are given, and my hon. friend has a suspicion that possibly they are subsidiaries of

the Imperial Oil Company. I do not know. No doubt they sell their oil after they get it. They would not raise it unless they had some prospects of disposing of it. The Imperial Oil Company may be the buyer of their oils; there may be affiliations between them-I do not know-but under the law I do not think I have any particular duty to enquire. It is the producer that receives the bounty under the law, and all that I have to do is to see that the party that produces the oil gets the bounty.


Lucien Cannon: The question I am putting to the minister is this: Does the Government consider it fair that public money should be given to companies such as these under the law as it exists to-day? The question is all the more timely because if these corporations are rich, and are simply representatives of the very large oil trust called the Imperial Oil Company, the financial condition of Canada is such that we certainly cannot be extravagant and over generous in our treatment of them. I do not believe that any of these companies need any bounties if they are affiliated with, or related to, the Imperial Oil Company. If the law forces the Government to give these grants, I think the sooner that law is changed the better it will be for the country. I wish to draw the minister's attention to another fact. Looking over the Estimates concerning his department I have not seen any item covering the amounts which are to be distributed as bounties during the coming year?


George Green Foster: These grants, as I have told my hon. friend, are the result of a law passed by the Dominion Parliament in 1904 and which has ever since been upon the statute book. By virtue of that statement preceding Governments have paid these bounties in exactly the same way as we are paying them now. If my hon. friend looks into the Estimates he will see that there are statutory payments made which appear in the Auditor General's Report. There are also payments made by virtue of votes passed by Parliament and debitable to the Consolidated Revenue Fund.


Lucien Cannon: I understand that, but it does not affect my argument. I contend that whether an amount is authorized by statute, or whether it is simply voted in the ordinary way by the House of Corn-cons, it should appear in the Estimates to be voted for the current year. Such is the

case I contend, and to illustrate my contention I will mention the salaries which are voted every year for the judges, which salaries are fixed by statute. The amount for this purpose is what we may call a statutory amount, but nevertheless the Minister of Justice comes to the House every year, with the Estimates for his department and in those Estimates there appears a fixed amount from which will be taken the moneys to pay the salaries of the judges throughout the country. I contend that whether the money to be paid as a bonus to petroleum companies in Canada is a statutory payment or not it should appear in the Estimates. I would therefore like the minister to tell me where the money for this purpose does appear, so that we will know exactly what amount is to be expended in the coming year.


George Green Foster: It is impossible for my hon. friend to tell, or for any one to tell him, the exact amount that will be expended during the year. That amount will be based on the number of gallons of this specific kind of oil which is raised and approved for bounty. The production may be large or it may be small, it varies from year to year, and you could put no sum in the Estimates which would represent the exact amount which may be spent. The contention of my hon. friend that in certain cases statutory payments appear in the Estimates is perfectly clear. I am not so certain that an amount, following the general rule, might not be placed in the Estimates to cover this item, but it would have to be an indeterminate amount. There would have to be a sufficient amount voted to cover the possible expenditure while the real expenditure,
9 p.m. owing to reduced consumption, might be very much less. But, as a matter of fact, the basic principle of the law is adhered to. The law states what shall be paid per gallon in the form of bounty. The administration of the law carries out the direction of the statute, and cannot go beyond that. So that whether the amount is put as an indeterminate item in the Estimates, no more or no less can be expended than what the statute calls for.


Lucien Cannon: My point is that no minister of the Crown has a right to spend five cents of public money without having previously obtained from Parliament the consent of the representatives of the people to the expenditure of that money. If the minister will look through his Estimates, and I refer him particularly to page 24 where the Estimates of the Department of
Agriculture are set out, he will see where statutory payments are mentioned. The rule in this matter is well known. Does my right hon. friend seriously contend, in view of his very long experience in Parliament, that he has the right as a minister of the Crown, or that his department has the right, to spend money during the coming year without the representatives of the people having previously voted that mo'>ey? T do no+ think he will contend any such thing because it would be absolutely opposed to all rules of constitutional procedure. My right hon. friend is in exactly the same position as every one of his colleagues, and he cannot, after this session of Parliament is concluded, spend five cents, or a dollar, or ten dollars, without having previously obtained our consent as representatives of the people. The right hon. gentleman says "I cannot say to-night exactly how much money will be spent." Very true. But we do not ask the right hon. gentleman to state the exact amount which will be expended. We do want the right hon. gentleman to follow the rule of parliamentary procedure which requires that an amount for this purpose should be placed in the Estimates. That amount may not be all spent but it cannot be exceeded. The minister, through his officials and especially through this official whose salary we are now being asked to vote, should find out how much money he needs -he should fix the maximum which cannot be exceeded but which possibly will not be reached. This is the rule, and it must be followed by my right hon. friend as well as by every other member of the Government. If the right hon. gentleman refers to the Estimates, and the Supplementary Estimates, and the further Supplementary Estimates, of last year he will find nowhere an item covering moneys which have been paid for this purpose, even though the expenditure appears in the Auditor General's report. Under what authority did the minister spend that money? Under what authority did he spend money of which the Estimates of last year make absolutely no mention, and as to which they are just as blank as the Estimates of this year? How could he make such an expenditure without it having been voted by Parliament? I think, Mr. Chairman, that having regard to constitutional procedure the situation is very serious, and before we vote the salary of an official who is supposed to look after the administration of this law and distribute bounties to companies, we have a right to know how much money that official is going to distribute. Further-

more we have the right to find .out by
virtue of what authority the right hon. gentleman distributed money last year of which the Estimates contained no mention. I maintain that my contention is right, and that the Government has absolutely no power to spend any money unless that money has been regularly voted by Parliament.


George Green Foster: My hon. friend has worked himself up to a wonderful pitch as a constitutional authority, but he has ended with one sentence which is the only thing that I shall advert to. It was that no minister has a right to spend a single dollar which has not been voted by this chamber. Let there we no doubt in our understanding of my hon. friend's statement. Now I will ask my hon. friend how much this House voted to the Minister of Justice? Will he be good enough to turn to the Estimates and see? Will he then turn to the expenditure and tell me and this committee whether he still considers himself to be right in his dictum? Or will he impeach the Minister of Justice for spending some millions of dollars in his department over and above what has been voted by this chamber?


Lucien Cannon: Will the right hon.
gentleman allow me-?


George Green Foster: Will the hon.
gentleman allow me for a moment longer?


Lucien Cannon: The right hon. gentleman is putting a question to me.


George Green Foster: I am, and I
will give my hon. friend an opportunity to answer it afterwards, and I would like him to bestow a little thought on it before he makes his answer. I am giving him an opportunity to be correct. Will he look at page 8 of the Estimates, item 4, and find out how much was voted by this chamber to the Minister of Justice for salaries and contingencies? It amounted this year to $190,832.50 with contingencies $25,000. Does my hon. friend suppose that all the expenses of the administration of justice will be paid for out of those two amounts? But that is all that was voted. And in his search after knowledge will my hon. friend turn to page 12 of the Estimates? There he will find that besides the amounts voted by this chamber $1,345,300 will be spent on the administration of justice under authority of statute, and under that authority alone. The figures there given are simply details, and not one dollar of it has been voted by this chamber. So that my hon. friend is not quite right in the stand which he has taken.


Lucien Cannon: The right hon. gentleman was kind enough in his answer to adopt a tone which I am not going to copy, and he was also kind enough to ask me to bestow some thought before I replied to him. I always do think before I speak, and the answer to what the right hon. gentleman asks is very simple. I think that if he was a lawyer he would not have spoken in the way he has, because from a legal viewpoint his answer is no answer at all, and the question he put to me is no question at all. What I said is very simple, and I want the right hon. gentleman to understand and to bear in mind that when I am speaking I am thinking, and not to make the mistake of believing for one moment that I bestow no thought on what I am saying. We are asked to-day to vote the salary of an official of the Department of Trade and Commerce, which salary, if I mistake not, is fixed at three or four thousand dollars.


George Green Foster: Two thousand
dollars.


Lucien Cannon: This official has the duty of supervising the administration of a special law. This law sees to it that certain bounties are distributed to petroleum companies throughout Canada; and those bounties are distributed in accordance with that special law. My contention is very simple. I say that the amount which the Department of Trade and Commerce wishes to distribute for the coming year ought to appear in the Estimates in the same way as the salaries paid to our judges, so we may know exactly what moneys are being spent. The right hon. gentleman asks: Will I move for the impeachment of the Minister of Justice, because in the summary appearing in the index of the Estimates he has shown two amounts, one of $190,000 and another of $25,000 which do not cover the whole expenditure of his department? Certainly not; and the right hon. gentleman could not have been serious when he suggested such action. The amounts which are to be spent in accordance with the law and which are voted by Parliament can be expended by the department, but I say that those amounts have to appear in the Estimates so that every year the law as regards that expenditure will be again ratified by Parliament.


George Green Foster: How ratified?


Lucien Cannon: May I point out to my right hon. friend that there is a wide difference between a law passed by Parliament ten or fifteen years ago, providing for

the expenditure of a certain amount of money, and the expenditure by the Government of those moneys every year. It is a well known rule, and a rule which exists in England as well as here, that Parliament does not vote money for more than twelve months. That has been well established in England, and is considered to be one of the greatest safeguards of English liberty and freedom. My right hon. friend is not going to deny that. Therefore, as public moneys are not to be voted by Parliament for more than twelve months, another rule has been established in England-a rule so well known that my right hon. friend with all his experience will not deny its force- that Parliament has to meet at least once every twelve months. What does that mean? It means that every year the Government, through their ministers, have to come before the representatives of the people to obtain new subsidies, and the subsidies which are then voted to them are annual subsidies. The principle is the same, no matter whether it is a case of voting salaries to judges, or bounties to petroleum companies as in this instance. My right hon. friend will not deny that. So, coming back to my first argument when the right hon. gentleman answered me, I say that he ought to put in the Estimates an approximate amount of what is to be spent, which we are entitled to know. Does the right hon. gentleman contend for one moment that this committee is giving him a blank cheque for any amount at all? We are just as much entitled to know what the Minister of Trade and Commerce intends to spend as we were to know what the Minister of Agriculture intended to spend in accordance with laws passed by Parliament. On page 4 of the Estimates, the summary, I find the following: " Trade and Commerce, authorized by statute "- nothing; not a cent. So I think I have answered the question of the right hon. gentleman. I wish to be very respectful to him on account of his age and experience, but I am quite sure that his answer will be as thoughtful as the one I have given him.


George Green Foster: I have stated my position, and my hon. friend in his reply has fled the coop.


Mr. JACOBS:: What does that mean in English?


George Green Foster: In English
that means that he has carefully avoided reaffirming the assertion which he made twice-it is on Hansard and he cannot get
rid of it-that no minister has the right to expend one dollar which has not been voted by this Parliament. Now, I am within the hearing of both sides; I am within the hearing of my hon. friend directly opposite, and he will not deny that.


William Stevens Fielding: It is quite correct.


Lucien Cannon: I maintain the position which I took.


George Green Foster: I do not think my hon friend restated his position, and I do not think he can maintain it.


Lucien Cannon: Well, I tried to state it.


George Green Foster: All through the Estimates there are certain sums which are voted and certain sums which are authorized by statue. For instance, in the case of the Department of Justice the sum of $1,300,000 for judges' salaries, authorized by statute, is absolutely fixed.


Lucien Cannon: And has to be voted.


George Green Foster: And has not
to be voted by this House. These sums that are authorized by statute are placed in the Estimates for information, but the House does not vote them. The total amount voted for agriculture this year was $4,502,139, but agriculture will spend this year an additional $1,100,000 which is authorized by statute but not voted by the House. In the case of pensions, $620,910 will be expended by virtue of the statute but is not and will not be voted by the House. So all the way through the Estimates. I am not prepared to say that as a matter of information it might not be shown under this vote that there is authorized by statute the payment by the minister of one and one-half cents per gallon for all crude oil of a certain test whic'h has been raised and certified to; it would be information, but you would not have to vote it. If my hon. friend's contention is that it would be useful to the House to have it appear in the Estimates that there was an expenditure authorized by statute, when I would concur with him, but I cannot agree that no single amount whether authorized by statute or not, can be expended by the mniister unless it has actually been voted by the House.


William Stevens Fielding: This being an oil item,
I would like to be able to pour some oil on the troubled waters. There is something to be said on both sides of the question. When the member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) says that no minister has the right to spend one dollar of public money until it has been



voted by the House he is absolutely right, and if my right hon. friend disputes that assertion he is absolutely wrong. But it does not follow that you have to vote it every year in the Estimates. The sums that are put in the Estimates as authorized by statute are there for information. The only point of difference between my right hon. friend and the member for Dorchester is whether it is necessary to vote these amounts every year, and on that point I am bound to say that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is correct; these sums are voted by statute and the statute is a standing authority to the ministers concerned for the expenditure of the money. Where the amount is fixed, as in the case of judges' salaries, you have no difficulty in stating it in the Estimates for the information of the House, but in this case I see the difficulty of putting in any particular amount. It is not intended by the law that there shall be a limit to the amount in this case, and as there is no fixed sum it would not be easy to state it in the Estimates each year as the member for Dorchester desires. However, the main point taken by the member for Dorchester is correct: that the minister has no authority to spend one dollar unless it has been first voted by the House. All these sums mentioned as authorized by statute have ben voted by the House; otherwise there would be no authority for spending them. But I agree with the minister that it is not necessary in all cases to set the amounts out in detail; in cases where there is not a fixed sum he might have difficulty, indeed, in doing so.


Frank S. Cahill: I submit there is no more difficulty in fixing the amount in this item than there was in fixing it in the next item of $26,000 for a bounty on linen yarn.


William Stevens Fielding: I believe that is not voted by statute. It is done by an Order in Council, and unless it is voted by this House from year to year, it cannot be paid at all.


Frank S. Cahill: I contend that this item should not be paid either.


William Stevens Fielding: That is another question.


Frank S. Cahill: The minister this afternoon said that the statute was passed by the Liberal administration. If it had any usefulness at the time, apparently its usefulness has passed, and surely the minister should not attempt to perpetuate any evil legislation on the part of the former Liberal administration as an excuse for fur-

ther expenditure of this nature. If the expenditure is unnecessary-and I think it is; indeed I do not think the principle of bounties is good in any event-why not eliminate it? Is it not time that the Government should look around for ways and means of saving money instead of spending it in every possible way? To be consistent, the Government should either eliminate this bounty or throw the lands open for prospecting to all. The Government is adopting a principle of paying a bounty to one set of people and not giving other people an opportunity of prospecting. The person who has a little oil well is getting his bounty, but the Government does not allow others to go in and prospect. The fact that this appropriation has been passed from year to year, is not a sufficient excuse for its continuance. There must be some period at which this bounty will terminate, and I do not think it was the intention of the Government of that day to perpetuate it. If there is no advantage in continuing it this year, why not discontinue it? The Government never seem to find any way by which they can save money; with them, it is always a question of added expenditure. The only excuse they offer is: Well, this legislation was passed by a Liberal administration; therefore, it must be good. I am quite free to admit that about the only good things they have to offer are some of the things which they have taken from the Liberal administration, but I do not think this is one of them and it should be eliminated at once.


Mr. REDMAN:: I cannot follow the argument of my hon. friend. As I understand the matter, this is a bonus which was given to oil producers in counties of southwest-era Ontario where the production is so low as to make it almost impossible to proceed with that production unless some Government assistance is furnished. That was the situation at the time the Act was passed under the late Liberal administration, and it is much more the position today, because from that time the production of individual wells in those counties has gradually and continually decreased. What I rose to speak about is this. I wish to take the minister back to the statement he made a short time ago when he said that this bounty is limited to oil of a certain specific gravity. I think he threw out the suggestion-I do not think it was more

than that-that this was done because this may have coincided with the specific gravity of oil which must necessarily be imported to meet our domestic needs in this country. I do not know whether or not that was the fact at that time. My view is that this has always been an incentive to the production, discovery and exploration of oil in this country. In Alberta, we have a grade of oil which is very different in specific gravity from oil obtained in Ontario, and to that Alberta oil this bounty is not applicable. In Ontario, the wells are sunk to a depth of only 400 to 1,000 feet at a very small cost, whereas in Alberta, wells are sunk to a depth of some three or four thousand feet, it costing $40,000 to $100,000 to put down one well. The quantities of oil which we have been obtaining southwest of Calgary are no't great although the value of the oil-is great, and the field may have potentialities. I wish to point out the unfairness of paying a bounty in Ontario where the cost of obtaining oil is so small, when a bounty is not paid to those who produce oil in Alberta where very great cost is incurred in putting down wells. I think this matter has already been presented to the minister in petitions, and he has probably looked carefully into the matter and will have an answer ready. The bounty should be continued until such time as we discover in Canada the sort of oil which will enable us to produce oil in competition with the outside world on an equal basis without the necessity of a bounty. Until that time a bounty should be paid by this Government, not only to assist those who are now producing, but to encourage others to explore and prospect for oil, the necessity for which in this country no one can dispute.


Lucien Cannon: I have listened with
great interest to the remarks contributed to the committee by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding), who has had a long experience in this House as Minister of Finance and as a member. His opinions have great weight and I am sure the Minister of Trade and Commerce will not dispute the opinion given by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's. But the two hon. gentlemen seem to agree on one point, and that point is that statutory expenditure has not to be voted by Parliament every year. I accept with great respect their opinion; but on
90 i
the other hand I would submit that the wording of the Estimates and also the spirit of the law, as I understand it, although I may be wrong, do not seem to agree with that opinion. I would refer the minister to page 4 of the Estimates, on which there is a summary of the whole expenditure for the current year? What do we read? It is the "summary of the estimated expenditure of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1922, together with the sums granted for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1921"-that is granted not, for an indefinite period, but for a definite period- "and a statement showing the increase and decrease for each service." If we read the summary in one column, we see the ordinary Estimates and in the other column we see the Estimates authorised by Statute. The law was passed in Parliament in 1904, says my right hon. friend. This law, having been enacted by Parliament, and having been sanctioned by the Governor General, becomes the law of Canada. That sanction is an authority to the Government to put the law into force, and one of the provisions of the law is that moneys are to be expended. I say that as far as the money part of the law is concerned, it has to be placed before Parliament every year in just the same way as every statutory vote is placed in the Estimates for all the departments. Being placed before Parliament in that way, which is not as formal and direct a way as is followed in the case of the other Estimates, every year Parliament gives a new authority to the Government to expend the sum which is mentioned in the law, and my contention is that unless this is done the Government has not the authority to spend the money. I do not wish to detain the committee very much longer on this point, but I might recall to the right hon. gentleman that in the old days in England when Parliament met only at long intervals, perhaps once in 15 or 25 years at the convenience of the King, the King did not need Parliament because at the opening of each reign Parliament met and voted once for all what was called the civil list and that civil list covered the expenditure for the whole administration of the realm during the reign of that sovereign. That was changed at the Revolution, and after 1688 the law was laid down by the British Parliament that in future moneys would be voted for only 12 months, and would be voted only after an itemized and detailed account had been submitted to

Parliament. Therefore I say that my contention is correct, and that my right hon. friend has no right, any more than has any other member of the Government, to spend a dollar of public money unless it has first been voted by Parliament. If my right hon. friend will refer to page 2 of the summary he will find that it does not contain one single cent of expenditure by his department authorized by statute. The position taken by the right hon. gentleman to-night might be improved if he would give more information to the committee; if he would tell us approximately what amount of money is to be expended this year in bounties to petroleum companies, and if he would do what all his other colleagues have done-place in the Estimates the moneys authorized by Parliament. I appreciate what my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's has pointed out, that it is very hard to fix a precise amount, but this law has been in force since 1904; the officials of the department know how it works, they are acquainted with all these companies and have a good idea as to the quantities of oil produced each year; so I think the official whose salary we are voting now should be in a position to give sufficient information to the minister to enable him to do with regard to his department what his colleagues all do with regard to theirs. I would ask another question of my right hon. friend. According to the law which was passed in 1904, is the amount to be expended by his department limited?


George Green Foster: It is one-and-a-half cents per gallon for every gallon of oil which comes up to the test.


Lucien Cannon: Suppose these new oil
fields which have been discovered in the West produce immense quantities of oil. Does my right hon. friend contend that, without giving any figures to the committee, or any more information that than he has done, he has authorization by this Parliament to give out in bounties at the rate of one-and-a-half cents per gallon, millions and millions of dollars? Where would he stop? We do not know. According to his interpretion of the law there is no limit to the amount he can expend. If that is the case, next year when we come back, if we do come back, and ask the right hon. gentleman how much money was expended, and he answers that in consequence of the immense success of these new oil fields he has paid, out in bounties ten to fifteen million dollars, we could not be able to reproach him in any way, unless we now 	,
insist upon his giving us more information and fixing a limit, so that we shall know where we are going. I think the right hon. gentleman will acknowledge that the position I am taking is very reasonable. We cannot give to his department a blank cheque any more than we can to any other department, and we have all the more reason for not doing so because he does not mention anywhere in his Estimates the amount which he is to expend, either as authorized by Parliament or otherwise. In the summary it is stated that the expenditure authorized by statute for the year 1921-22 amounts to $114,000,000, and then the total amount of the other Estimates is given, but in neither of these two columns does this particular expenditure appear. I do not think it is reasonable for the right hon. gentleman to insist on the committee giving him an absolutely blank cheque for this expenditure.


George Green Foster: I do not know that there is much to be gained by prolonging the discussion between my hon. friend and myself. The position I take I am quite willing to let go before the House, and the House can judge of it. The ex-minister of Finance, and trusted leader of my hon. friend, has coincided absolutely with my view.


Lucien Cannon: And also with mine.


George Green Foster: May I ask my hon. friend if when he made the statement that the minister could not spend a single dollar except it was voted by this chamber, he included in that assertion the vote of money by statute, or was he referring only to the annual votes which we pass here?


Lucien Cannon: My statement was to
the effect that all moneys to be expended by the Government must first be voted by Parliament.


George Green Foster: My hon. friend said that I could not spend anything during the next year except it had been voted by the House this year. There my hon. friend and myself differ entirely, and my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Finance agrees with me absolutely. No one in this House believes that any minister has the right to spend money unless it is either voted in the Estimates or provided by statute, but the statute may provide for expenditure for years and years and years, and we never revote in the House what Parliament has already voted through a law which it has passed.

My hon. friend says that if my officer were really any good he ought to give me such information as would enable me to put the precise sum in the Estimates. How can you do that? My hon. friend must realize that although you have the records to go by you can put in the Estimates only approximately what the cost will be. The production differs from year to year. Some years it is twice what it was the year before, and sometimes you will find a falling off of 50 per cent in production in the course of a year. So that it would be altogether misleading to attempt to put before the committee an exact estimate of what you would spend. You must put a sufficient amount to keep you out of all difficulties, even though it might not all be used. Every member has the Auditor General's report, which is a treasured document, and he knows exactly what is spent each year. That is, therefore, a guide. Now, with reference to the remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. Griesbach), I have had many communications from the West regarding oil fields producing oil that does not fulfil the test that is required before the bounty is payable. This is a vexed question, and in one way it seems to be unfair. But you have only to go back to the purpose for which this bounty was given, namely, to compensate for legislation that was passed some time ago, equalizing the quality of oil produced here with that imported from the United States, in order to get at the basis of the matter. The proposition is put up to me strongly: why not change the law so that it will cover our oil-producing regions in the West? Well, frankly, the question then would be as to where we should land if we made the subsidy applicable to all oil produced in Canada; and should the promises of large production in the West, which at present seem to be very great, be realized, it would involve a very heavy charge upon the revenues of the country. This specific gravity test has been on the statute books for quite a while, and I am not going to say that because it has been there it should remain there for ever. It is a matter for the House to take into consideration if it thinks that the time has come when that provision ought to be done away with; and there are different minds with reference to that. But until there is a change in the law, it is, of course, my duty to administer the Act as I find it. With reference to the millions upon millions which I might find myself under the necessity of spending, if something on a large scale took place in the North West -well, if we proceed on suppositions I fear
we may get off the solid basis of argument. I do not look for any such expansion. Anyway, so far, the specific gravity test has been the differentiating factor in the granting of the bounty.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: I want to say a word or two, not in connection with the discussion that has taken place, although I think the country and the House should be thankful to my hon. friend (Mr. Cannon) for having put his point so clearly, that is to say, that not a dollar should be spent without the authority of Parliament.


George Green Foster: That has been long recognized.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes; but the sooner it is made clear in the Estimates as to what our statutory expenditures are, the sooner those expenditures are specifically stated, the better it will be.


George Green Foster: That might be.


Rodolphe Lemieux: We are facing a very
[DOT] serious situation and the country is entitled to know what expenditures are to be made every year. The public will be more and more critical also in regard to the total amount of our expenditures. Although theoretically, on one branch of the argument, my right hon. friend is correct, yet the hon. member for Dorchester has rendered the country a service this evening in calling the attention of the committee to this very important question of putting before the country the real expenditures which are to be made and which are proper only as sanctioned by Parliament. The point I wish to make, however, is this: We are paying a bounty on the production of crude petroleum. I remember when this bounty was created by Parliament; as my right hon. friend stated a moment ago, it was in the year 1904. Now, I am not going to suggest the creating of other bounties, because I do not think that the country at the present time is in a mood to grant further subsidies. But in connection with oil, would it not be possible to encourage the exploitations of the large fields of shale oil in my right hon. friend's native province as well as in my own? There are immense fields of shale oil in the province of New Brunswick, in the county of Albert; and lately very large fields of shale oil have been discovered in the counties of Gaspe and Bonaventure. As I say, I am not asking for a bounty, nor would I dare propose the creation of one for the development of those fields. But when the new tariff is enacted, the Government should help the

pioneers and the miners by decreasing or completely abolishing the duties on the machinery needed by the miners and operators for the development of those fields of shale oil. I believe I am speaking by the book when I say that my right hon. friend, who is familiar with this question, has reason to view this suggestion with sympathy, not only because it concerns his own province or the east of Canada, but because the whole subject is a highly important one. This country is in need of fuel oil, and the Government should help to develop these natural resources. Evidence was taken by a committee which sat a year or so ago in the Senate chambers, where experts were heard, and it was recognized and admitted that these fields of shale oil can be successfully developed if the Government will agree to admit the necessary machinery without exacting the duties that are at present levied. In all mining ventures, and especially in regard to oil, the crucial test, or, to use Wilsonian language, the acid test, is the period of development; and if the miner or the operator cannot secure at reasonable rates the machinery and the engineering required for that development, he is, of course, barred out, and under such circumstances these fields will remain unproductive. I call the attention of the right hon. gentleman to that fact. We-I should not say "we", because I am not .the owner of any of these fields, but the Canadian people-would be pleased if the Government would give free machinery, and free mining implements, in order to promote the development and the operation of those natural resources.


Mr. BELAND:: I want to ask the right hon. gentleman a simple question touching a matter as to which I would like to be enlightened. We read on page 4 of the Estimates that the grand total of the expenditure for the next year will be $582,000,000. Does that represent the whole of the expenditure for next year barring the Supplementary Estimates?


George Green Foster: My hon. friend's question has reference to the figures in the third column?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes. The grand total of the summary is $582,000,000. If we have no Supplementary Estimates this session does this amount represent the whole of the money that will be paid out during the next fiscal year?


George Green Foster: I would not
undertake to say that it does. That third

column is the total of the two sums in the two preceding columns, of what is to be voted and what is authorized by statute, but whether everything authorized by statute is included in that amount or not I do not know. If it is, then that would represent the total amount that could be paid out, exclusive of expenditures by Governor General's warrant for special emergencies and things of that nature.


Henri Sévérin Béland: May I further ask whether the minister expects that during the next fiscal year his department will pay out about the same amount as that which appears in the Auditor General's Report for the last fiscal year in bounties on crude petroleum? The figure for the year ended March 31, 1920, was $103,000. Does the right hon. gentleman think that the amount to be paid out during the present fiscal year will exceed that sum or be about the same?


George Green Foster: There again I cannot give a definite answer. In one year
350,000	gallons of oil are raised; in another year the quantity is 202,000 gallons. What is raised one year is no definite lead as to what may be raised the succeeding year. Last year a certain number of gallons were raised, and the bounty was paid on that quantity at the rate which is allowed. Next year there may be half that amount raised, or there may be fifty per cent more than that raised-it is impossible to say. That indefinite feature is there and you cannot get over it; you can make no definite statement with regard to it, From the year 1904 that item has never appeared, so far as I know, in the "Authorized by law column" of the Estimates. I suppose the reason it is not put in is that you would be rather misleading the House if you put in a certain amount not knowing whether the production of oil would rise or would fall, or would remain just about the same.


William Stevens Fielding: Where you are dealing with a contract for the construction of a work by the Government, or anything of that kind which is under government control, you can, through your officers, make a reasonable estimate of what you are going to do-


George Green Foster: Yes.


William Stevens Fielding: -but when you are dealing with corporations over whom you have no control-


George Green Foster: And with Providence.


William Stevens Fielding: -you cannot make an estimate with any accuracy; you have to be dependent upon the work '	10 p.m. which it suits their convenience
to do. Now, in fairness, while we are on this branch of the subject I must say that we have in times past spent vast sums under the authority of statutes which have not appeared in the Estimates. Let me take as an illustration the railway subsidies. Again and again we have voted railway subsidies and millions-many millions-of dollars have been expended under these Acts, but my recollection is that they never in any case appeared in the Estimates. Let me mention another case. Within my own experience we have spent millions in bounties on steel and iron, and I do not recall any case in which they were mentioned in the Estimates. Why? For the reason I have just given, that they were not Government works; they were operations carried on by corporations over whom the Government had no control; and so long as there was statutory authority to pay the money-at any rate, speaking within my own recollection-I do not think it was customary to mention these sums in the Estimates. I agree that it would be a convenience if you could have a general summing up of the whole thing, but in the case of the operations carried on by corporations that would have to be largely a matter of guess work.


Henri Sévérin Béland: We may at all events draw the conclusion that the amounts specified in the main Estimates do not cover the whole expenditure for next year, and it is a disagreeable revelation that at least $100,000 can be added to the already very large sum required for the next fiscal year without the public knowing anything about it.


Andrew Ross McMaster: May I make a suggestion? I think most of the people who take an interest in these matters have been accustomed to feel, though quite wrongly, that the sum total found at the beginning of the Estimates was the amount which the country would have to provide for the fiscal year next ensuing. Now we learn that they are amounts authorized by statute which do not appear in the summary. The fact that some of these amounts do appear in the summary would lead the ordinary reader to suppose that all expenditures authorized by statute do find a place there. In order that the public, who, though they have not taken an interest in the past in our financial condition, are bound to do so in the future, may have a more correct idea of just what the commitments of the country are, I would make this suggestion, which I trust is a reasonable one-that there should appear at the end of the summary a statement of what was paid under the authority of statute which is not mentioned in the summary itself. I quite understand from the statements of the minister and the member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) that it may be quite difficult to estimate the amounts that are to be paid under any special statute, by way of bounties, for instance; but we [DOT]should be able to put in a supplementary statement at the end of the summary showing what has been paid under the authority of statutes for the preceding year.


George Green Foster: For the last year?


Andrew Ross McMaster: Yes, for the last year.


George Green Foster: You find that in the Auditor General's report.


Andrew Ross McMaster: No doubt all these things are available if one knows just where to look for them, either in the Auditor General's report or in the Public Accounts; but my suggestion is that when persons- members of this House and the outside public who are interested in these matters -come to examine the Estimates, they should have before them in convenient form exactly what is submitted to the House and voted, and what was paid under statute, although difficult of computation, for the past year.


William Daum Euler: The minister seems to
take the position that the principle of bounties cannot fairly be discussed in connection with this item. In a sense he is perhaps correct, yet I would like to associate myself with the member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) in his opposition to the granting of bounties. I have not heard the minister give any reason whatever why these bounties should continue to be paid, except that they are paid under a statute enacted in 1904. With all respect to the right hon. gentleman, I do not think that is a sufficient reason for their continuance. This matter is directly in his department, and it seems to me that he should proceed

on the principle that the monies to be paid out by way of bounties are for some definite purpose. If he believes the reasons which moved the previous government to give these bounties by way of encouraging oil production still hold good, he should be prepared to defend those reasons. I am entirely opposed to bounties and I think it is time to repeal the law under which they were granted. I question very much whether the bounty of a cent and a half a gallon encourages the production of oil; it merely adds that much more to the profits of those who do not require any assistance. Unless the minister is convinced that the granting of bounties does still give encouragement to oil production, I think he ought seriously to consider the introduction of legislation to repeal the Act under which these bounties were first granted.	.


Henri Sévérin Béland: As the Supplementary
Estimates are sometimes laid on the table of the House as late as the end of June, would it not be well to include in them the amount paid during the fiscal year ended the previous March, so that the country will know exactly the amount likely to be paid during the current year? I would ask the right hon. gentleman to bring this suggestion to the attention of his colleagues.


George Green Foster: I will.


Mr. CLARK (Red Deer):: I am sure my right hon. friend (Sir George Foster) must be impressed with the strength of sentiment opposed to the principle of bounties. The words which have just gone from my hon. friend from North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) are very impressive. I have no doubt myself that this item, small as it is, is a waste of public money. I settled that question for myself many years ago, and when I first came to this House I expressed myself more than once along those lines. I think my hon. friend from Maisonneuve (Mr. Le-mieux) has pointed out to the minister a more excellent way of helping the exploration of the wealth beneath the surface of the earth-by making it easier to get the implements by which that wealth may be won. I have not had time to look into what the Argentine has done of recent years, but before the war she had no duty whatever on mining implements, and the Argentine resembles Canada in these respects, that it is thinly populated and is a new country. My right hon. friend balks at the idea of paying out this bounty on large amounts of oil; but he contends for this modest sum of $3,000. That attitude brings him to what is the fundamental and,

in my opinion, the insurmountable objection to bounties. You can only pay a bounty to two kinds of business: either to a business which is a paying business, when obviously it does not need any assistance and it is a gross injustice to the taxpayers to assist it; or to a non-paying business, which is a foolish waste of public money. In the ab- [DOT] sence of bounties people would put their capital and their energies into a line of business which on the whole was likely to be remunerative; otherwise, they would withdraw from it. I hope my right hon. friend has been impressed, as I have been, with the strength of sentiment that has been expressed by my hon. friends from Dorchester, Pontiac, Maisonneuve and other hon. gentlemen. I want to add my modest word to theirs, and I hope if he does bring in the Estimates another year he will be so much impressed by the arguments advanced to-night that he will drop even this small sum. I want to reiterate in a sentence that, in my humble judgment, it is a waste of public money, and certainly no responsible citizen of Canada at the present time will argue for one moment that we have any money to waste.


Frank S. Cahill: My hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. Redman) states that this bounty is necessary for wells that are not producing enough oil to make them pay for the labour expended on them, but he must know that such enterprises are better closed down at once. He might just as well argue that his friend who is sitting beside him, the member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion), would be justified in asking for a bounty on fish in portions of Lake Superior which have been fished out.
I have no doubt that the right hon. gentleman would grant such a bounty, and I also have no doubt that lots of fishermen would be ready to take that bounty to catch fish.


Michael Clark: They would catch the bounty.


Frank S. Cahill: Yes, that is what most of them are looking for. The principle of bounties is wrong. When an enterprise will not pay for the labour, and we have too many remunerative occupations for our people to waste their time and money on those that are unprofitable. The minister has stated that if it was the wish of Parliament to abolish this bounty, it would be abolished. I am quite satisfied that if I moved to strike the item out the minister would call to his support all his followers, and the item would carry. Legislation is conducted by the Government, and the Gov-

ernment is sure of the votes of its supporters. While they may criticise, as they did this afternoon, when it comes to a vote they are sure to support the ministry. Therefore such a suggestion cannot come from this side with any hope of success; at least, the amendments we have made so far have been voted down. The time is coming, and coming soon, when that will not be the case. But in the meantime what can Parliament do about it? It is for the minister to take the responsibility for this expenditure, and before he asks for an unlimited amount, say $100,000 or $200,000, he should consider well the advisability of eliminating unnecessary expenditure. This is not a time for unnecessary expenditure.


Lucien Cannon: Before this item is passed I wish again to protest against the principle of giving bounties to companies and corporations that do not need them. I object also to our voting a salary to an official who will distribute an amount which is nowhere mentioned in the Estimates. In other words, we are giving a blank cheque to the Department of Trade and Commerce and my right hon. friend can spend any amount he wishes; there is nothing to restrict or to curb his extravagance if he is inclined to be extravagant. If my right hon. friend's contention is correct that if an expenditure is authorized by statute he does not have to come back to the House and have the amount voted but can spend what he likes each year, the Government might as well introduce a Bill conferring upon themselves the power to spend a lump sum of say $500,000,000. We would then have no budget; the usefulness of the House of Commons would disappear, and the Government would be able to run the country as they wish to run it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canada Year Book, $20,000.
Frank S. Cahill: What is the reason for the increase?


George Green Foster: It is due largely to the increase in the cost of paper.


Frank S. Cahill: How many of these books are distributed free, and what good purpose is served by spending $20,000 for the Year Book? Is it worth the money to the people, and if so, in what way?


George Green Foster: That might be a debatable question; it would depend upon one's point of view. I, myself, have no doubt as to the utility of the book and the usefulness of the purpose which it
serves. I know of no progressive country in the world which does not publish a year book of singular excellence. Our year book has been published for a number of years; its quality and efficacy, so to speak, have been increasing each year and I believe that Canada has to-day, with the possible exception of Australia, a year book as comprehensive, as well put up, and as consecutive in the information which it gives as that of any other country which publishes such a book. Last year we published an English edition of about
9.000	copies and a French edition of about
3.000	copies at a cost of $22,000. The work is now done in the Printing Bureau; formerly that was not the case. A certain number of copies are distributed to libraries, chambers of commerce, and permanent institutions of that kind, where they are available to those who seek information concerning Canada. Then, a price, which is just about the cost of publication, is charged for all copies distributed, other than the complimentary copies of which I have spoken. One feature which has been introduced in the book is, I think, valuable. Each year an exhaustive article is published dealing with one particular phase of Canada's development-whether concerning her history, her mineral wealth, or otherwise-so as to bring up to date all the information in compendious form with reference to that subject. Then in succeeding publications there is a reference column to articles which appeared in the preceding books, so that if one does not find in this year's book the information which he seeks he may refer to the previous volume dealing with the subject.


Frank S. Cahill: How many have been distributed each year?


George Green Foster: I cannot tell my hon. friend the number, but I can get the information for him.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The information in the book covers the calendar year?


George Green Foster: Yes.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I have noticed that the Canadian Almanac contains more recent information in some respects than that which appears in the Canada Year Book.


George Green Foster: Yes, that is bound to be the case. The Year Book is not so much a pocket volume containing strictly up-to-date information as a permanent record. It takes a good deal of time to prepare it and get it published.


Frank S. Cahill: Has the Year Book always been published under the name "Canada Year Book," or was there some other title?


George Green Foster: I think the earlier volumes had a different name, but it has had the name "Canada Year Book" for a number of years.


Frank S. Cahill: The Imperial Canadian Year Book is a different publication?


George Green Foster: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Culling timber, including an amount of $600 for superannuated cullers, $1,600.
Andrew Ross McMaster: Why have we to pay cullers? I did not know the Government was in the timber busines.


George Green Foster: This comes in as the tail end of a long transaction, and this is the last time it will appear. It has been gradually diminished by appointments not being made, until I think we have now three officers left who are being paid small superannuations. Most of them, I regret to say, are over eighty years of age and will soon disappear. The active operations of this work will disappear after this year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grant to Canadian Engineering' Standards Association for the promotion of uniformity of standards in metallic and other products, ?iC,000.
' Mr. CAHILL: What does this appropriation accomplish?
George Green Foster: This appropriation has appeared for the last two or three years, and when the committee understands what it is for, I am sure it will consider the apropriation a very useful one. It is granted to the Canadian Engineering Standards Association. The Canadian Engineers banded themselves together, and they are now at work particularly in forming standards of various kinds, so as to standardize productive operations. As members of the association they give their whole time to this work, and we give them a grant of $10,000 to enable them to carry on.


Frank S. Cahill: Are they meeting with any positive success?


George Green Foster: Yes. They have divided themselves into a large number of committees, each committee taking up one special subject with the idea of introducing standardization in regard to that

product, whatever it is. They get together and canvass the question, discuss the standards that they fix, come to an agreement and then bring all the pressure they can to bear upon the manufacturing companies to adopt those standards. They are meeting with great success in that respect. Anyone who will think for a moment will realize the great economic gain which would be had if, instead of a manufacturer devoting himself to five, six, seven, eight or ten different standards in the manufacture of an article of use, he could bring those down to the minimum number of usable standards and manufacture along that line.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Do they make reports to the Department?


George Green Foster: Yes, and we
have on record the results of their work.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Are the reports available for the public?


George Green Foster: We have them on record; we have not printed them. My hon. friend could get any in which he is interested.
Honorary Advisory Council of Industrial and Scientific Research,-salaries and expenses, including printing and stationery and the collection and distribution of information, and for studentships, scholarships, special problems and forestry studies, $120,000.


Walter Davy Cowan: In the speech from the
Throne reference is made to a Bill dealing with scientific research. Will any expenditure entailed by that Bill be in addition to this amount, or does this include it?


George Green Foster: This does not
include it. What is contemplated in that allusion is something of a much more extended kind; it is really a national laboratory for standardization and research. On the other hand, this would have an intimate connection therewith, and when the other is established, this would work in with it to a very large extent. That correlation would have to be made after we knew the form of the new venture, so to speak.


Mr. CROWE:: The latter part of the item refers to: "forestry studies." Is that work in a forestry products laboratory?


George Green Foster: That is an
explanation, a little more extended, of what is meant by the research. Those are the lines along which they are carrying on research. They include not only the research and salaries and expenses, but a system of studentships, fellowships

and bursaries which the advisory council supervise, and, after proper examination, award for special researches in different lines. They take up quite a large range at the present time. There are included in them some forestry problems, mining problems, productive problems in industry, and scientific problems to a certain extent where they are trying to solve difficulties which are met in processes of production and they carry on experiments to that end. the system of bursaries, fellowships and studentships has been found to work well in Great Gritain and other countries, and the same line is being followed out under this research board.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I would venture the
assertion that the work conducted under this Advisory Council of Industrial and Scientific Research might far better be conducted under the universities of this country. For instance, we know that in the Faculty of Applied Science of McGill Universities we have had some of the leading scientists, I may say, of the whole world, some men who occupy chairs in that faculty are really men of world-wide reputation and have done a great deal of their most important work in connection with the university. What I am afraid of, in voting this $120,000, is that we are largely duplicating the work of the universities, and I think if we wish to promote scientific and industrial research, that work can much better be carried on in the great scientific schools attached to universities like McGill, Toronto Varsity and Queen's University at Kingston.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The University of
Montreal.


Andrew Ross McMaster: The University of
Monereal, Laval University and others. I would like to bring forward this objection which, I believe, is a serious one. Would the minister inform us how he expects with the appliances available at Ottawa to have the work done as well as it would be done with the magnificant equipment at McGill, for instance, and I speak of McGill not because I do not realize there are other universities splendidly equipped, but because I am familiar with the equipment of my Alma Mater.


George Green Foster: I am afraid my hon. friend has not read the yearly reports as diligently as he might have done if he had had more time. The universities are not ignored under this system. Their energies are co-ordinated by the members of the Research Council, many of whom
are connected with the universities. These researches are not carried on by means of appliances here in Ottawa, but at the universities themselves by members of the universities, either professors or students who have gained their degrees or passed through most of their courses and have specialized in some one of the subjects. They are appointed under the bursary studentship and fellowship appropriations to carry on during the vacation months researches along a certain line. Here is a research, for instance, being carried on by Professor Porter of McGill University. A grant of $1,500 is proposed to be given him out of this vote in order to defray his expenses in carrying on an investigation with reference to oil flotation in the recovery of values, by the application of Canadian and other oils, taking into consideration minerals other than those of the Cobalt district. There is a line along which iesearch has been extended. The professor has been at work on that and shows an aptitude for it. This grant is given to him under the supervision of the Research Council to enable him to defray his expenses in carrying on that investigation for another year. That is just an example of how the work is done. There is no laboratory here under the management of the Research Council where independent research is undertaken. I have a number of instances here of bursaries, studentships, fellowships, and grants for researches that are being carried on at McGill, Queen's, Toronto University, and other universities which have the appliances and the skilled workmanship necessary to enable them to undertake that work.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I would not like the minister to think I was opposed to research work. I am glad to know that it is being carried on in these places where it can best be carried on, but I would like to be convinced of the necessity for this council in regard to this work. Would the minister tell us roughly how much of this $120,000 is going to the actual work of research at the universities, a'nd how much goes for the salaries of officers or officials connected with the council?


George Green Foster: The Research Council is composed of a number of gentlemen who are selected because of professional and scientific knowledge and skill, also of men who are versed in and familiar with the industries of the country. All of them give their services without any

remuneration with the exception of the president, who is a constant or stationary officer and who had to give up his work in the university and become a sort of Director for the Research Council, supervising their work. All the others give their services free. We pay their expenses when they come to Ottawa for their meetings, which are every fortnight or three weeks as necessity dictates. Dr. Macallum, who was the Director, and received a salary of $10,000, has resigned and gone on a mission to Pekin after being appointed to a position in McGill University. His place has been taken by Dr. Ruttan, who is filling the position until we come to a conclusion in reference to the laboratory which has been spoken about and the rearrangements which are to be made. He fills that position gratuitously. I make that explanation to show that salaries are not a large part of the expenditure. The others receive their travelling expenses and their living allowances when they are attending the meetings. Last year, salaries and allowances and the staff which is necessary to carry on the work consumed $14,800, printing and stationery and travelling expenses of members took up a certain amount and the standard gauge laboratory equipment took up $9,000. I must make an explanation with reference to the standard gauge laboratory equipment. It had been purchased by the Imperial Munitions Board, and had been used by them to a certain extent. When the Imperial Munitions Board was demobilized this valuable machinery remained there. The value of it was somewhere in the neighbourhood of $30,000. They offered it to the Research Council for $9,000. It is worth fully the amount that I stated first. After consultation, the Research Council decided to buy it at $9,000. It could be sold at more than that price at any time, but if thi.s new arrangement is made and comes into force it will be absolutely necessary to have that gauge. Forestry examinations took $8,000, assistant researches, seventeen in all, $24,467, fellowships $4,100, studentships $4,125, and bursaries $2,150.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Are all these studentships carried in Canada?	.


George Green Foster: All in Canada.


Henri Sévérin Béland: None in England?


George Green Foster: No. Professor McLennan, who has charge of the physics laboratory in Toronto, has been conducting

experiments there for us. During the war, he was taken over to England and employed by the British Government in research work, and his investigations proved very valuable indeed. While in England he was working for the British Government, not for us.


Henri Sévérin Béland: How many of these
students are there?


George Green Foster: There were
seventeen researches carried on last year in different lines, an example of one of which I put before the House. There are six students.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Are they university
graduates?


George Green Foster: They are university graduates or undergraduates who have made their mark and shown a distinct aptitude in and desire for a certain line of research, and they are selected by the Research Council after consultation with the presidents of the universities with a view to obtaining the best men. They are given fellowships which enable them to carry on research.


Andrew Ross McMaster: In glancing over the
Auditor General's report, I would submit, for the consideration of the minister, that the overhead, if I may so term it, in connection with this enterprise, is very much higher than it should be. The administrative chairman is far from being a stationary officer, for I see he spent seventy-eight and three-quarters days at $10 per day travelling around, and his railways fares amounted to about $436. The expenses in connection with this undertaking amount to about $33,000 out of a total of some $94,000 for the work that is supposed to be done. I think the thing is top-heavy, and there are comparatively few students who are being helped. At any rate, the amount spent on helping students is very much less than the overhead. Let me draw the attention of the committee to this item:
Dr. Andrew Hunter, Toronto: Grant to aid in research into the problems of the fox-breeding industry, honorarium $200, travelling expenses, $191.10, advance for expenses, $5,000.
I respectfully submit that if you are going to make experiments in fox breeding, an amount to some fox breeder down in Prince Edward Island would be a good deal wiser than grants to any gentlemen who lives in Toronto. I never knew that city to be famous for fox production.


Mr. PARENT:: They have to be foxy.


Andrew Ross McMaster: It strikes me that
we have paid out a good deal of public money in this direction, and far too much has gone in the way of expenses to those who were not doing the real work, but who were more or less supervising. The Minister of Immigration and Colonization has a very wise look on his face and perhaps he could give us some information in regard to the subject of fox breeding. I throw out this suggestion because there is a sapient expression on his face.


Mr. CALDER:: I have no knowledge of
the subject.


George Green Foster: First, with
reference to over-head expenses. The one purpose of the Research Council was to interest scientific bodies and to line them up as far as possible in accordant action. In order to do that they must visit the different parts of the Dominion and consult with those men and form organizations. To have said to Dr. Macallum, "We will pay you $10,000 as director, and then make you stay in Ottawa so as to obviate travelling expenses", would not have been a proper manner in which to conduct the enterprise. Dr. Macallum did travel over every part of the Dominion. He called on scientific and university men, had conversations and conferences with them, and formed them into groups which affiliated themselves in woi'k with the Advisory Council, under their direction. That was the first really excellent step that was taken. It had to be taken if you were going to collect information, focus scientific research work in Canada, and carry it on under proper supervision and in a regular manner. With reference to fox breeding, this is an industry that has had its ups and downs. On the whole it has shown possibilities of very large returns, not only from foxes, but from other wild animals that might be cultivated. The difficulties in fox culture arise, so far as I understand, chiefly in regard to habitat, feeding, and procreation of foxes. Foxes are, of course, a foxy lot, and many a breeder, after he has spent large sums of money, and has obtained a litter, suddenly finds, after leaving them in good condition one day, that the next day they have in some way or other disappeared. Very frequently they are destroyed by the mother herself. Now why is that? The mother fox destroys her young through fright. Some clumsy method in dealing with these animals may give rise to fright on the part of the mother and she probably thinks that
the best way of standing between them and their enemies is by destroying them. An endeavour is made to provide proper food and, generally, such treatment as will make the habitat as natural as possible and on the whole make for natural conditions. This research work was carried on in the actual farming! of foxes for a certain period. Strict scientific observation was made of them on which conclusions might be based as to the best methods of feeding,, breeding and looking after them. When that information is ascertained, and has behind it scientific authority, as well as experience, it will prove very valuable to the fox breeding industry as a whole.


Andrew Ross McMaster: What is Dr. Andrew Hunter, who is devoting his attention to fox breeding? Is he a veterinary doctor?


George Green Foster: So far as this research goes, I suppose you would call him a fox doctor.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Well, he is doctoring foxes and he gets an advance for expenses of $5,000.


George Green Foster: That is for
carrying on experiments.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Where has he carried on these experiments?


George Green Foster: In Prince
Edward Island in the vicinity of Ottawa.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Well, I submit that it is not wise to appoint a man who is a veterinary doctor, or a homeopather, or a dentist, who lives in Toronto, to carry on investigations of this nature in Prince Edward Island. Why should a man in Toronto be engaged to carry on research work in Prince Edward Island at a total expenditure last year of over $5,000?


George Green Foster: I am not a fox doctor, nor am I an authority on the breeding of animals. My hon. friend, however, has a high opinion of McGill University, and I know he has an equally high opinion of Dr. Ruttan who was on the Advisory Council, which thought it necessary, after a thorough consideration of the matter, to devote a certain amount of money to this purpose. He was one of the Advisory Council who made that proposal. I cannot give my hon. friend the information which I know he could obtain from Dr. Ruttan, although I could get it for him and give him a memorandum on the subject. I know ij: would be both interesting and

instructive as well as satisfactory to my hon. friend if he would meet Dr. Ruttan and talk the matter over with him.


Andrew Ross McMaster: There are many things which we should like to do in Canada if we had the money. I do submit, with all -respect to the minister, that the country's finances are not such as to warrant the expenditure of this amount of money on investigating the psychology of mother foxes in order to provide some remedy against their unnatural and most unmotherly propensity for dining off their young. As a matter of fact, the member for Cha-teauguay and Huntingdon (Mr. Robb), who has experience in country life and is member for one of the finest agricultural counties in the Dominion, tells me that the female pig also very often does the same thing. To my mind, Mr. Chairman, we have to economize, and I think the Government is very severely to blame for spending so much money on this sort of scientific investigation.


George Green Foster: It is not only scientific, but it is practical. This industry is one which is largely carried on at the present time -and is capable of almost indefinite expansion in our country. I will just read a little memorandum I have on the subject for the benefit of my hon. friend:
To the Associate Committee of the Research Council investigating the problems affecting the fox-breeding industry of the Dominion.
I may say that $5,500 was the grant.
This committee has been engaged for over a year in studying the causation of the' low yield from this industry. In Prince Edward Island the average number of fox pups to a litter ranges from three to five, but the number of pups reared to maturity averages only one to three per pair of foxes. The loss, therefore, is in the neighborhood of about sixty-five per cent of each litter, and apparently is largely due to wholly unsuitable diet which affects the mother vixen before the birth of the litter, and also the young pups. There is no knowledge for the fox breeders to go upon on this score, and the Fox-Breeders' Association appealed, over a year and a half ago, to have this investigation conducted under the auspices of the Research Council. This was agreed to by the latter, which planned an investigation which would extend over two years at least. The associate committee consists of five professors-
Now I will catch my hon. friend-'
-of biochemistry and physiology two representatives of the Department of Agriculture, one of whom is Dr. Tjorrance, the Veterinary Director General of the Health of Animals Branch. The investigation is now being conducted under the auspices of the Associate Committee by an expert Canadian biochemist, who

has, for the past fifteen years, been engaged in studying the nutrition of farm animals in the North Western States and Canada, and who has control of part of the Research Laboratory of the Health of Animals Branch at Hull, P.Q., where there are installed special pens for the foxes and special equipment in the laboratory for this purpose, at the expense of the Department of Agriculture.
The Fox Breeders' Association have donated six pair of foxes estimated at a value of $2,000, which are now under observation as to diet and the resulting state of nourishment. Already data have been obtained which seem to point the way to a standard diet for these animals which, if established, will lower the mortality amongst the young foxes and thus save, it is hoped, about a million dollars a year for Prince Edward Island alone.
The grant will enable the work to be continued until the end of 1921.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Are the grants made by the minister or by the Council?


George Green Foster: The grants are recommended by the Council and the minister agrees or disagrees, and with his approval they go into operation; but I may say that so far as I am concerned I have taken, in most instances, the considered recommendation of the Research Council. In some cases I have talked recommendations over with them and they have been withdrawn.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I understand that all the members of the Council do not devote the whole of their time to this work?


George Green Foster: No, they do not.


Henri Sévérin Béland: But they convene 4n Ottawa?


Henri Sévérin Béland: How often?


George Green Foster: Yes.


George Green Foster: As a rule the meetings are held about once a fortnight. The members of the council could not be expected to give their whole time to the work. They are men who have their allotted duties in the universities. They get no salary for this work, but they do give a large amount of time. They
11 p.m. not only attend meetings here but they are more or less at work even when they are absent from Ottawa.


Charles Murphy: The right hon. gentleman has just read an interesting document, the product of a number of eminent gentlemen, some of whom were biochemists. Now among those "bios" was there a practical fox-breeder-even one practical fox-breeder?


George Green Foster: I have read a statement giving the composition of the committee, and that statement also mentions the fact that the foxes were placed in these pens by those who own them in Prince Edward Island. The foxes are kept under the supervision, and subject to the constant observation, of these men who are carrying on the experiment and making the notes. That is the only way in which the investigation could be conducted. Even a practical fox-breeder might not be able to make scientific observation. I do not know how it is with foxes-but generally a successful breeder has the knack of it and has luck-gets along well.


Charles Murphy: The last observation of the right hon. gentleman is really the one that applies to this industry. The practical and successful breeder does not need the assistance of the "bios" who compose this committee. To quote the language my right hon. friend used in the House a few weeks ago, "honest injun now," does he not think the money is wasted?


George Green Foster: I do not.


Charles Murphy: The right hon. gentleman says he does not?


George Green Foster: I do not.


Charles Murphy: Then may I tell the right hon. gentleman that among the large population in this part of Canada he is an outstanding exception.


George Green Foster: That is not always a demerit.


Charles Murphy: It is very well known that this Council of Industrial and Scientific Research is just a method of providing-well, a sort of pleasant occupation for a number of gentlemen who form little coteries here and there, and to whom the irreverent refer as members of a mutual admiration society. Now just in this connection, a gentleman who is said to be a very eminent man, and whose standing in a university I will not attempt to question, was until lately the head of this Council of Scientific and Industrial Research-I refer to Dr. Macallum. Amongst those who have been born and have lived in Ottawa all their lives, and who are not very easily impressed by the great or the neargreat, there was a very settled conviction that Dr. Macallum was not at all what he was represented to be in connection with this Council of Industrial and Scientific Research. Efforts were made in this
House from time to time to find out what salary Dr. Macallum received in Toronto university before he was transferred to Ottawa but those efforts were unavailing.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Futile.


Charles Murphy: As my hon. friend from Brome classically says these efforts were futile. But a few short months ago I chanced to read an address by the present president of Toronto University in which he gave the secret away, and he mentioned that Dr. Macallum used to get $4,000 in that institution. He was brought down here and was provided with a position affording much more time for recreation than occupation, and was paid $10,000 a year. So far as I am aware, neither the House nor the country has ever been . given a single proof of any practical work accomplished by Dr. Macallum or this Council of Scientific and Industrial Research. I am not charging the present Government, still less my right hon. friend, with having been the initiators of this method of public expenditure. In times past I recall that other gentlemen, supposed to be very eminent in the scientific world, were also engaged in alleged scientific occupations. To one gentleman we used to vote money annually-indeed, we may do so yet, for I have not scrutinized the Estimates with sufficient care to state definitely-for experiments in electric smelting. From time to time this gentleman interviewed himself and handed out information to the newspapers of wonderful accomplishments at the Soo in connection with electric smelting, but so far as a critical and cynical public ever knew the only thing he turned out were some paper weights. I remember I was favoured with one.


George Green Foster: Have you got it yet?


Charles Murphy: I believe so. I hope to produce it here as Exhibit A to illustrate to the House and to the public what value we received for the expenditure of public money in this way. Now, Dr. Macallum has resigned and no successor has been appointed?


George Green Foster: No permanent successor.


Charles Murphy: Is the $10,000 being
paid to anybody else?


George Green Foster: Not at the present time.


Charles Murphy: Is it to be paid to anybody in the future?


George Green Foster: I cannot tell; that will depend on the reorganization.


Charles Murphy: In any event the work is going on without Dr. Macallum?


George Green Foster: Yes.


Charles Murphy: I submit, Mr. Chairman, that that is the most eloquent commentary that need be made on the value of Dr. Maeallum's services to the country in return for his $10,000 a year. I am not criticising my right hon. friend, in fact, I do not know if his department has had the supervision of this Council from its inception, but; to use his own phrase again: "honest injun, now," isn't it about time we stopped providing for these gentlemen? They are all quite respectable, but none, I submit, renders any service of practical value to this country for the money received. Just take the illustration given to the committee a few minutes ago by my right hon. friend of the expenditure of some $5,000 as a retainer and honorarium, with travelling expenses thrown in, for a gentleman in Toronto to instruct people down in Prince Edward Island in fox-breeding-people who have forgotten more than this gentleman will ever know about foxes. If my right hon. friend requires any information on foxbreeding, all he need do is move down a few seats to the hon. member from Prince Edward Island (Mr. Mclsaac), who will no doubt enlighten him. The report the right hon. gentleman read contains no practical information regarding fox-breeding that was not known before, and much more accurately by the people who are engaged in the industry in Prince Edward Island. All Governments have been sinners in this respect, they have yielded to the importunities of pestering friends, and jobs of this kind have been created for people who have nothing else to do, or who in public competition with practical men could not earn enough for their keep, to use a common phrase. In view of the serious financial situation of the country, I submit to my right hon. friend that he could render no greater national service at the present time than to ask the committee to drop this item.


William Stevens Fielding: The suggestion of the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Murphy) seems to be that Dr. Macallum was furnished with a soft and easy job, to repeat an expression which is sometimes used in the Government service. Yet the strange fact is that Dr. Macallum seems to have voluntarily resigned that job and

gone where his services are appreciated. That would suggest to me that Dr. Macallum is more entitled to commendation than criticism. Without going into details, and particularly without undertaking to sit in' judgment on this foxy business, I wish to say that in regard to some general system for carrying on scientific research in Canada I am cordially with the Government, and I think it is desirable that it should be encouraged. Of course, it should be conducted in a practical way and should be devoted to the development of the natural resources of the country. We have suffered in the past because other countries have given more attention to scientific research than we have. It is a matter of notoriety that much of the success of Germany in industrial affairs was due to scientific research. I have not sufficient knowledge of these matters to go into details, but I do wish to go on record as heartily supporting every effort to employ scientific men to the end that they may devote their talents to the development of the natural resources of Canada. I do hope that if there are any defects in details the criticisms offered today will be taken into consideration, but on the main question of having some well defined system of scientific research I wish to give my cordial support to the action taken by the Government.


Mr. NICHOLSON (Algoma) :: Statements have been made that the money voted for the purposes of scientific and industrial research has literally been thrown away. In my judgment, as one who has had something to do with practical affairs, instead of the vote being cut down it should be very materially increased if the . country could possibly afford it. We are lagging behind industrially because we are away behind scientifically. The tremendous waste that is taking place every day could be avoided if we had the leadership of *just such men as Dr. Macallum, to give our industrial leaders the scientific direction which they require. We could pay our national debt out of the waste that is involved in our industries every day. In northern Ontario during the whole period of the war we were importing iron ore from the United States and smelting it into shell when the ore itself only carried thirty per cent of iron. At the same time we were mining ore in northern Ontario, taking it out to the. roasting beds, destroying vegetation, and roasting out of it twenty-three per cent sulphur, then at very great expense putting it through the

smelter and securing only fifty to sixty per cent iron because we have not developed any scientific process to make it possible to separate the precious and coarse metals in the one operation. In those slag heaps there is enough iron to keep every rolling mill in Canada going if we had a process by which the iron could be saved. That is the kind of thing that is going on. My hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) thinks it is very strange that Dr. Macallum, who was head of the Research Council, should have resigned this fat job that he was holding down, I suppose my hon. friend would consider, as an ornament to society or as the head of a mutual admiration society. Well, why did he resign? Because his worth was recognized by a commercial organization which is willing to give him just double the salary that he was receiving as head of the Research Council.


Charles Murphy: Does the hon. gentleman state as a fact that Dr. Macallum is now receiving twice the salary he was receiving before?


Donald Nicholson: I am credibly informed that Dr. Macallum has been engaged on a five year contract at $20,000 a year and expenses. I am confident, without having any more than a passing acquaintance with Dr. Macallum, that those who have employed him would not have done so were they not confident that he would earn his salary. But leaving Dr. Macallum out of the question altogether, if this,country is going to advance as it should, we should increase this item rather than decrease it. We should strengthen the hands of the Research Council by giving them a laboratory here in Ottawa where this work can be carried on. I know scores of cases in which men who wanted to get a certain commodity or product analyzed in this country could not do so; they had to go to the United States or to some other country in order to get the information. The committee of the House which dealt with this matter heard the evidence of the heads of the universities, to whom the member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) referred, and it was recommended by those gentlemen that a research institute be established and properly equipped with laboratories where research work could be carried on under the most favourable conditions, It will be seen by the evidence given by the heads of the universities before this committee that they do not agree with the view of the member for Brome that this research work should be done in the universities. They say that the business of the men in the universities is to teach what others search out for then and place in their hands, and that if you double up the work- well, the member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) shakes his head. But it was the view of all these gentlemen that the man engaged in the teaching profession in the university is not in a position properly to carry on research work. I do not wish to labour the question, but I repeat that instead of reducing this amount we should look forward to increasing it and to giving the Research Council all the necessary facilities for properly carrying out this very important work.


Samuel William Jacobs: Are the professors to
whom the right hon. gentleman referred in the document which he read-those engaged in the fox farming industry-veterinarians?


George Green Foster: The associate
committee which is carrying on the investigation consists of five professors of biochemistry and physiology and two representatives of the Department of Agriculture, one of whom is Dr. Torrance, Veterinary Director General, Health of Animals branch. I should just like to reply briefly to the statements made by my hon. friend from Russell (Mr. Murphy). As an exhibition of good-natured banter and persiflage, of its kind, it was excellent; but the very same type of speech has been made on numerous occasions for many years past with reference to scientific men engaged in the work of research. This patient, tireless, exhaustive work does not show itself from day to day, but it frequently results in some discovery, either of synthesis or of analysis, some discovery of the relations of materials and their effects in combination, which puts into the world's productive industries millions upon millions of money and into the economic use of the country products which it otherwise would not have and at lower prices than would otherwise be the case. My hon. friend spoke about Dr. Macallum. I am loath to bring Dr. Macallum's name here; his affairs are his own affairs. But I can tell my hon friend that neither before he took this position nor since has Dr. Macallum been obliged to beg for offers of emolument or for the highest positions. He is at this mement loaned to the Rockefeller Institute, having been selected by them for special work in China during five, six or seven months. Before he was appointed head of the Research Council he received an offer of a position in


Charles Murphy: With the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) and with the Minister of Trade and Commerce, I am in hearty accord as to the desirability of applying science to Canadian industry as rapidly and generally as possible; but neither of these gentlemen told the committee, because neither of them could do so, that any practical result or benefit to Canadian industry has resulted from the work of this Advisory Council of Industrial and Scientific Research.


George Green Foster: I just mentioned one.


Charles Murphy: My right hon. friend
is one of the cheeriest optimists in Canada, and that excellent quality develops and increases as time goes by, and I commend him heartily for it. He mentioned that in a couple of months he expected that so-and-so would likely happen in connection with production of some of the lignite in the West. With him I hope that will be the case. My criticism is not based on any objection to the application of science and industry; quite the reverse; my objection is that real scientists with a practical knowledge of industrial chemistry have not been engaged, and I will give my right hon. friend my authority for saying so. I think the minister, my hon. friend from Algoma and other gentlemen in the House, will not be disposed to question my authority. Having the general knowledge that a person goes through college and university has about* scientific subjects, without having devoted himself to the pursuit of the study of anyone of them in particular, I was anxious to find out from gentlemen competent to speak, what was the practical value to Canadian industry of the work of this Advisory Council. In looking about for the quarter to which I might address my inquiry, it occurred to me that I could not address it to any better informed quarter than to the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. I, therefore, made inquiry there, and I was told by one of the most

competent officials of that association-and I need not mention either to the minister or to the hon. member for East Algoma that the Canadian Manufacturers' Association makes a specialty of employing competent officials-that while Dr. Macallum might be very eminent as a bio-chemist in a university, he was absolutely useless as an industrial chemist in connection with the industries of this country; that he had absolutely no knowledge on that subject, and the council of which he was a member produced no practical results. The opinion of this official of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association was that no practical results would follow from the work of this Advisory Council of Industrial and Scientific Research until chemists with a knowledge of industrial chemistry were employed in connection with it. That is my reason for the statement that I have made; that is the information I got, and that is the quarter from which I received it. My right hon. friend has described the results that flow from the application of science to industry. My right hon. friend used the phase that it was slow in its processes. In that respect this council measures up to the definition. We in Canada-and in this regard I want to point out that I am in perfect accord with the hon. member for East Algoma- need the application of chemistry and science to Canadian industry; but I desire to see whatever money may be voted for that purpose applied in the proper way, the way to produce results applied, for instance, in connection with those who may be engaged to conduct those scientific inquiries, in securing the services of men who not only have scientific knowledge but are able to apply that knowledge practically. The fact that, according to my informant of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, not one single practical result has so far flowed to Canadian industry from the work of this council, is the strongest possible criticism that may be offered with regard to expenditures of moneys that hava in the past been voted for this purpose. An I said in my opening remarks, I do not offer these observations by way of criticism of the Government, still less of the minister in charge of the Estimates; I am offering them tp the committee as a reason why either this vote should be discontinued or a very different method pursued in future in the expenditure of the money.


Mr. MANION:: As one of those who
some twenty years ago was a student of Dr. Macallum in Toronto University, I
have listened on different occasions in this House to criticisms of that gentleman, and while I should not like to pass upon his ability as a bio-chemist, or on his ability in the position.which he occupied on this Research Council, I should like to say this in justice to him, and I think it is only fair that someone should say it. Twenty years ago Dr. Macallum was one of the few men Canada had ever produced who had an international reputation in science. Dr. Macallum's name was known in every civilized country in the world in which the scientific branch which he taught at Toronto University was studied. I mention that in passing because I think it is only just that should be said about him. .It is an absolute fact that cannot be denied by anybody who knows the subject which he taught to the students in Toronto University. I should like also to say that there have been various investigating committees in England looking into the industrial life of that country and wondering why it was not going ahead as it should have done, particularly since the war, and I have seen reports which stated that one of the main reasons why the industrial life of England was not going ahead was because Germany, for example, went into industrial research work on a much greater scale than England. It was also pointed out that all these industrial research committees in Germany were working for the advancement of that country, and that many large industries there had these research committees working for them. They would often find that a man or a hody would be engaged on investigations for a number of years before accomplishing any result which would be of use to the industry, hut then after many years work results would be attained which would be very beneficial to the industry and fully justify the length of time that had been taken up by the investigation. The Industrial Research Council of Canada has been in existence for only a short time, and I think we should wait with patience for a while at least to give them an opportunity to bring forth results which I believe will be of great benefit to the Dominion of Canada. I believe personally that a research council of some kind should) be maintained to a reasonable extent, I think it is one of the most needed requirements of this country at the present time.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I do not wish to
detain the committee at any lenght, but I desire to say just a few words in reply to

the observations made by the hon. member for East Algoma. I would hardly agree with him in his statement that the university is not the proper place for research.


Donald Nicholson: That was not my statement, but the statement of the presidents of the universities and the professors in the universities, made to a committee of this House.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I was just going to take that up. I could hardly imagine that the Principal of McGill University made any such statement. My recollection is that this committee sat within a year. Prior to that the Principal of McGill had been laid aside by a paralytic stroke, and his successor was only appointed within ~the last few months. At any rate, if the president did make such a statement I cannot agree with him. I think the whole history of research is contrary to that statement. If we take McGill University for instance, we find among the scientific discoverers who have shone in Canada in recent years, such men as Professor Rutherford, who was a professor at McGill, Professor Nicholson, also of McGill, Sir William Dawson, a principal of McGill, and one of the greatest discoverers in geology that we ever had, and Professor Barnes who was one of the great discoverers of the action of freezing water and eminent in scientific research along that line. Then if we go to the Old Land we remember that the great surgical discoverer, Lord Lister, was a professor at Glasgow if I mistake not, that the discoverer of chloroform, Sir James Simpson, was a professor at Edinburgh, and that Lord Kelvin was a professor at Glasgow. If we look at the history of scientific research in Great Britain and Canada we shall find that a large proportion of the most eminent men were college professors. My hon. friend from East Algoma made the statement that a man could not be an investigator on research work and be a professor at the same time. I hardly think that is correct. But I would have him and the House remember that a university has advanced students, such as the students of the graduate school of Johns Hopkins University, probably the greatest school for research in the whole of North America. I am, however, opposed to the idea of incurring expense for laboratories, which would be expensive to maintain, here in Ottawa. These laboratories should be at the universities, where the best work, in my humble opinion, can

be done. I would not like the hon. member for East Algoma or any other hon. member of the House to think for a moment that I am opposed to the application of s'cience to industry. We are all in favour of it. It is simply a question of what is the best way to arrive at the desired end.


Thomas Vien: I should like to inquire what formalities have to be complied with in order to obtain the services of the Research Council.


George Green Foster: If my hon. friend wants information with reference to any particular scientific research problem, just make application to the Chairman of the Council. If in the operation of an industry he comes up against a difficulty which puzzles- him, an exact statement of his problem should be sent tc the Research Council. It would then be taken into consideration, and if they thought it was of sufficient importance to work out, they would hand it over to some person who was au fait in that particular line of research, and through a bursary or fellowship he could be given the means to defray his expenses while he was at work on that problem. That, however, cannot be thoroughly and efficiently done without a central laboratory, and we shall have a discussion on that in the future.


Thomas Vien: Is it the intention of the Government to take advantage of the Advisory Research Council for furthering investigation into the electrical treatment of titaniferous iron ores? The Government some years ago spent quite a large sum of money studying the treatment in electrical furnaces of these titaniferous ores, and if I remember rightly, they sent Dr. Stansfield of McGill University to Sweden and Norway and other countries to investigate the processes in vogue there. I understood from the report of Dr. Stansfield that titaniferous iron ores could be successfully treated in Canada provided we could get electrical power cheap enough, but that the development of the electric furnace had to be carried still further before any economic advantage could be taken of our deposits. Has the minister -any information as to the activities of the board in that respect? If not, is it the intention of the Government to investigate this matter further with a view to utilizing our deposits?


George Green Foster: If I mistake not, the laboratory which is carried on by the

Mines Department has had that subject before it and has conducted research with reference to it. Does my hon. friend remember to whom Dr. Stansfield made his report?


Thomas Vien: To the Mines Department.


George Green Foster: Well, I am quite certain that the Advisory Council has not undertaken any ambitious work in that respect. It is a pretty costly undertaking, and I suppose they have not felt themselves in a position to do anything in that direction.	*


Thomas Vien: I do not think the experiment would be extremely costly in view of the developments which have been made in the electrical furnace. There is only the question of the magnetic selection of ores after they have been crushed, so that the iron ore might be obtained and the titani-ferous portion be so reduced as to be economically treated afterwards in the electrical furnace. I think this would be of great interest to the province whence I come, because we have there in large quantities deposits of titaniferous ores, and also of oriferous and iron ores. In the county of Charlevoix there are deposits which were exploited about forty or fifty years ago, but operations had to be discontinued owing to the economic difficulties that had to be contended with. They could not compete with iron ores free from titaniferous alloy. I think the Advisory Council would find that it is not so expensive to complete the investigations already carried on under the direction of the Mines Department by Dr. Stansfield. I do not think very much study of the subject is necessary.


George Green Foster: I will bring the matter to the attention of the council.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Inspection and Sale Act, administration of, $2,500.
Frank S. Cahill: What is it that is inspected?


George Green Foster: Hides, leather, etc.; the payment is chiefly by fees.


Thomas Vien: Are there any grants in this?


George Green Foster: This is all for the principal inspector.


Archibald Blake McCoig: Are any of the officials in connection with this matter paid any fees?


George Green Foster: This is the
salary of Elzear Cote, who is the inspector of hides for Quebec. It also includes expenses in connection with the inspection of hides and the supervising of binder twine, $250, stationery and printing, $130. The salary of Cote is $1,620.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
International Customs Tariffs' Bureau, $1,400.
Frank S. Cahill: What is this?


George Green Foster: This is larger than the vote of last year because during the war, for two years, no appropriation was made. The work went on, not as efficiently as before, but still it was continued. This is an added appropriation to cover expenses. We pay a certain proportion, about $600 a year, as our share.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: On page 105 of the
Estimates, I find an item for a similar proposition. I would call the attention of the minister to item No. 12, which is similar to this item. Will be explain the reason for these items appearing under two different heads in the Estimates? The item on page 105 is:
Chief, Foreign Tariff's Division.


George Green Foster: That is an entirely different thing. This is a fee that we pay to the International Customs arrangement which gathers together the tariffs of all the different countries and keeps track of their changes, distributing the information to the associate nations. We are one of the associate countries and we pay this $600 a year as our contribution towards the maintenance of this arrangement.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: The information given
me the other night in regard to the other item is practically the same as the statement now made by the minister.


George Green Foster: It was an explanation along similar lines. We have to keep a staff here for the collation of that information and its distribution to our own people.


Georges Parent: Who determines Canada's contribution?


George Green Foster: A certain sum is necessary for carrying on this work, and it is divided as fairly as possible among the associate nations. The amount is only small.


Georges Parent: According to the Auditor General's report, Canada has not paid anything for six years. At page Z-30 I find the following item:
International Customs Tariffs Bureau-Canada's share of cost for six years to March 31, 1920, $3,972.
Apparently the department has to wait quite a long while to ascertain what its share is to the general fund.


George Green Foster: The information I have here is just as I have given it. However, I will look into what my hon. friend has said:


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
West India Cable, $38,933.33.
George Green Foster: This is the
customary vote under the contract. The contract is one entered into between the British Government, ourselves, and the West Indian colonies. Its purpose was to extend cable connection between the various West India Islands and to provide for a reduction in the tolls charged for the service. The British Government pays the same amount as we do. The contract has two years yet to run. The different West Indian governments pay proportionally. The service was considered necessary, and as we were interested in it we contribute towards the subsidy.


William Stevens Fielding: Is it paid to the
Cable Company?


George Green Foster: Yes.


Thomas Vien: When was the service established?


George Green Foster: About six or
seven years ago.


Frank S. Cahill: What' is the real purpose of the service? Is it for commercial purposes only or for news and general purposes?


George Green Foster: It is for commercial purposes and for the sending of any messages that anyone wants to send; it is not a newspaper service. It represents about four thousand miles which is served by the companies which are subsidized.


Thomas Vien: Is this regarded as a subsidy to the cable companies?


George Green Foster: Yes.
<Sir George Foster.]


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Printing of Parliamentary and Departmental publications, including cost of translation $125,000.	'
[
George Green Foster: This is a new vote as it appears here and is following out the resolution of Parliament which, instead of paying for the printing done by departments, now asks that the departments pay for their own printing, Parliament paying what is necessary for its own purposes. All the departments come under the resolution referred to, which I consider a very salutary one. The departments formerly acted under the belief that Parliament would pay the whole of their printing bills, and were probably less careful in the matter of printing. The new policy throws the cost of printing upon the department which is responsible for it.


William Stevens Fielding: Each department will
have its own printing done?


George Green Foster: Yes.


Frank S. Cahill: Is the cost of the new
distribution service that the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Rowell) used to conduct from here included in this vote?


George Green Foster: The news service for the hon. member for Durham?


Frank S. Cahill: The news service formerly conducted by the ex-President of the Privy Council?


George Green Foster: There is no
news service by the hon. member for Durham.


Frank S. Cahill: I am glad to know the minister acknowledges that it did exist.


George Green Foster: I do not know what my hon. friend is referring to.


Thomas Vien: I would like to know of the cost of the Canadian Record, which used to be published under the ex-President of the Privy Council, is included in this item?


George Green Foster: No, nothing of the kind. This covers departmental printing done by the Trade and Commerce Department entirely, and that department undertakes no news service such
12 m. as was carried on formerly by the Publicity Department conducted under the President of the Privy Council.


Thomas Vien: Is there any news service
carried on at present?


George Green Foster: I cannot speak as to what is being carried on under the President of the Privy Council, but I am of the opinion that the news service such as we formerly had is now a thing of the past.


Georges Parent: ' I believe last year all the Government printing was done through a certain department which controlled the distribution of the material that every department had to print. May I ask the minister if this change means that the minister himself will have charge of the distribution of the material for printing?


George Green Foster: There is no
change made at all in the distribution itself. This simply applies to the bill for the printing.


William Stevens Fielding: At the Printing
Bureau?


George Green Foster: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
On the motion of the Right Hon. Sir George Foster the House adjourned at twelve o'clock midnight.
Friday, April 1, 1921